Institute for Relationship Intelligence Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
223301766
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Ariel, PA, USA
Phone
2014883733
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Centers, Clubs

Reported finances

Revenue
$116,612
Expenses
$67,375
Assets
$50,500
Liabilities
$-853

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Richard Panzer (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • William Gaigg (Secretary/Treasurer,Dir.)
  • Rev Javon P Allen (Director)
  • John Hessell (Chairman)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To support the creation of a positive youth culture in the U.S. that honors self-reliance, respectful relations between the sexes, marriage and parenthood, and service to others.Through educational activities and media outreach, the Institute for Relationship Intelligence seeks to help young people to value their lives, their health and their future goals including productive work, marriage, parenthood and family; to develop leadership skills that would allow them to avoid addictive or destructive behaviors that would damage their ability to achieve their future goals; andto develop the positive relationship skills that will enhance their future careers, marriages, and communities.Through educational activities and media outreach, the Institute for Relationship Intelligence seeks to empower parents and educators with the knowledge, awareness and tools to take a proactive role in the lives of the young people they care about.

What it reported doing in 2024

During July 2024- Jun 2025 IRI offered LoveSmarts education for middle school and high school students in Jersey City and Paterson, NJ. It also ran after-school clubs for youth in Newark, NJ. Topics covered included the importance of having self-respect, aiming for life goals, healthy boundaries, warning signs for toxic relationships including techniques employed by human traffickers, including the use of online social media and gaming to entrap new victims.IRI continued to send financial support to the Orphans and Vulnerable Children Trust in Zambia, Africa.IRI continued to send out email newsletters and posts on social media with information for youth and parents of teens with information about healthy relationships, avoiding negative influences like pornography and the benefits of committed relationships and serving your community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 99% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 39
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 28.5%; rating input score 28
  • Program expense ratio: 49.2%; rating input score 49
  • Fundraising efficiency: $23.34 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 22nd 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: 42.2%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.75; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.4% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.9% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 28.5% of revenue deployed · 49.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $33K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.