Global Village Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
621220750
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Summertown, TN, USA
Phone
6155860234
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$404,966
Expenses
$346,189
Assets
$11,284,641
Liabilities
$87,935

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Albert Bates (President)

People named in this filing

  • Albert Bates (President)
  • Andrew Langford (Director)
  • Lois Arkin (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We demonstrate whole systems approaches to foster regenerative conditions favorable to diverse life on Earth. We achieve this by designing eco-neighborhoods, ecovillages, and eco-regions that incorporate permaculture, bioregionalism, regenerative design, holistic management, and emerging tools and methods. We support and disseminate community-based strategies to remove carbon from the atmosphere and the ocean and to promote biodiversity and human well-being.

What it reported doing in 2025

Sharing The Presence e.V. Pocket Project, Wardenburg, Germany: One of the most effective approaches to collective trauma integration is the cultivation of coherence and resilience in groups, followed by a process of consciously turning towards and witnessing individual, ancestral, and collective trauma. As we gather people around a shared intention, we have more resources available and can integrate the pain, bit by bit, that could not be processed before. The ensuing release leads to mindset shifts and behavioral change - an increase in compassionate and collaborative ability, creativity and innovation, and a decrease in isolation, polarization, and separation. As we reclaim the contents of our unconscious, we become more empowered to create a better world.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 78% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.2%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 99.6%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 73.5%; rating input score 74; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.5%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 32.6; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 47.1% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.2% of revenue deployed · 99.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 7 filed program accomplishments · $345K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 42 of 44 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.