Peers Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463236193
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
8777224556
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Recycling Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$521,500
Expenses
$315,551
Assets
$338,768
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOUGLAS ATKIN (PRESIDENT)
  • RACHEL BOTSMAN (VICE-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • NATALIE FOSTER (SECRETARY): $31,251 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote economic opportunity, protect the environment, and prevent neighborhood deterioration.

What it reported doing in 2014

The foundation hosts educational resources on its website, and engages in public outreach to educate the public and governmental officials about the benefits of participating in the sharing movement and provide the general public with information and tools necessary to begin creating value through the assets they already own, to reduce comsumption and to participate in local activities designed to accomplish the foregoing. The foundation will also conduct research and explore ways to to bring the benefits of the sharing movement to very low-income individuals and families whose resources are small, and who therefore would benefit from sharing more than anyone else. The foundation works to identify governmental policies that encourage or impede the sharing movement and will conduct public educational outreach initiatives to address such issues.

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 - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.8%; rating input score 45
  • Program expense ratio: 74%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Missing
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 39.5%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.07; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.9%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.8% of revenue deployed · 74% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $233K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $31K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and related organizations
  • 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.