Organization for Visual Progression

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264216562
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2013, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Woodside, NY, USA
Phone
9175754862
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Support N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$112,105
Expenses
$103,900
Assets
$28,477
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Iben Trino-Molenkamp (President)

People named in this filing

  • Iben Trino-Molenkamp (President)
  • Benjamin Foley (Secretary-Treasurer)
  • Shannon Johnson (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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Organization for Visual Progression exists to build the capacity of civil society organizations to use video as a tool to document human rights abuses, facilitate conflict resolution, and effectively communicate with decision makers or target audiences.

What it reported doing in 2017

OVP helps organizations by strengthening their skills and strategies through the integration of video technologies that support their advocacy work. Partners in South Asia and the Middle East, who have successfully completed OVP's training, have collaborated with OVP on visual productions focused on labor migration, women's rights, education rights, extrajudicial executions, sexual violence, rehabilitation for the handicapped, and gender rights, among others.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 44% for direct work, and 56% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.5%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 81.4%; rating input score 81

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.3%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.5%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -18.1% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.5% of revenue deployed · 81.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $85K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.