Partnersglobal Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
814999795
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2029422166
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Promotion of International Understanding

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$55,360
Expenses
$40,036
Assets
$38,969
Liabilities
$33,113

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KYRA BUCHKO (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ROSELIE VASQUEZ-YETTER (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KYRA BUCHKO (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $261,444 total reported compensation
  • ROSELIE VASQUEZ-YETTER (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $235,767 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The partnersglobal institute will work around the world to address some of the world's most pressing issues related to governance and peaceful change management. Specifically, the institute will work with corporations, foundations, and multi-lateral/bi-lateral institutions to peacefully manage change. We believe in the power of local leadership and global collaboration to achieve inclusive, sustainable, and prosperous societies. Partnersglobal institute (pgi) works in partnership with local organizations from developing countries to transform conflict, strengthen democratic institutions, and achieve sustainable development.

What it reported doing in 2024

Gppac program (9217): the goal of this program is to support the gppac regional networks & working groups to consciously review, reflect upon and learn from our work - from our best practices to our challenges. We ask the regional secretariat to complete the form, but we strongly encourage you to reflect together with the regional steering group or the wider network - especially on sections 4 (outcome harvesting) & 5 (reflection & learning). Like previous years, criminal and state violence at the local and microlocal level continued to be a major challenge impacting peacebuilding and human rights in mexico. The situation in southern mexico, where most of the network members are based in quite dire. There were federal and national elections in mexico in the second half of 2024. The ruling party secured a landslide victory at all levels. While there were some instances of violence, including political, the elections were considered fair. The outgoing administration enacted major policy reforms which will have deep impacts in the governance structure and civic space in mexico. Key highlights include:- the judicial reform/overhaul (now all judges will be elected), which has been denounced as an improper solution to the very real problem of corruption in the justice system.- the continued weakening of the independent/autonomous oversight institutions, like the national ombudsman's office, the transparency and access to information institute, the national electoral institute, etc. - the expansion of the military functions in civilian affairs like infrastructure, customs management, citizen security. The new administration will continue and most likely expand the policies from the previous one. While there is a strong push for strengthening the social protection network and move towards a welfare state, the new policies and social programs are based on a capitalist extractive model that will continue to impact the rights of indigenous peoples and the environment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.3%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 27.7%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.97; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.85; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 74%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -29.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -21.3% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -18.3% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.3% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $40K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $261K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.