Goodneighbor Project
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 873205724
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2021–2021
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2021
- Location
- Lewes, DE, USA
- Phone
- 3103824663
- Rating
- 85
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community, Neighborhood Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,000
- Expenses
- $4,000
- Assets
- $1,000
- Liabilities
- $500
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Matthew Salerno (President, Chairman, Director)
- Archana Singh (Secretary, Secretary of the Board, Director, Exective Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Matthew Salerno (President, Chairman, Director)
- Archana Singh (Secretary, Secretary of the Board, Director, Exective Vice President)
- David Banfi (Treasurer, 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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
We better connect vulnerable populations with social services in the community through novel interfaces. We seek to be the conduit for those in the community facing hardship without the knowledge of the resources available to them. We hope to avail low-income neighborhoods with education and connection to services.
What it reported doing in 2021
We connected vulnerable people with mental health issues to local case managers that could assist them. We paid for the phone lines and software to connect volunteer facilitators with vulnerable local people. The largest aspect of this project was the creation of an important mental health hotline in the universal-protection tier. Advertising and resources were difficult to procure.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 100
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 43
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 20%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.25; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.5; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $5K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.