Peaks Foundation Inc C/o Laura Borner

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900643363
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Marietta, GA, USA
Phone
6782816634
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$18,052
Expenses
$43,121
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$-28

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • CHLOE CHICK (CO-FOUNDER & EXECUTIVE DIR): $3,800 total reported compensation
  • LAURA BORNER (CO-FOUNDER & EXECUTIVE DIR): $3,409 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Help women empower other women by (a) providing adventure participants with the opportunity to grow in confidence while developing leadership and team working skills and (b) providing funding to internationally based charitable organizations which support female-focused initiatives.

What it reported doing in 2015

Peaks foundation provides grants to nonprofit organizations around the world that empower disadvantaged women and girls. In doing so, individuals, families, communities and countries are also empowered. Education, providing maternal health care and engaging communities in conservation are examples of this. We generate financial support and capacity building for already established and successful organizations. Through our mountain-based challenges and conferences. Since peaks foundation was registered 340 women and girls have participated in our programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 94% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 69% 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. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 56
  • Sustainability: 9
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 73.1%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th 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: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 93.1%; rating input score 93; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -138.9%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.7%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -41.2% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -24.3% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -58.5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 73.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $32K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $4K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2011 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.