Population Connection

What it reported doing in 2024

Government relations: to inform congress and the administration about population issues and to advocate the adoption of measures to move the united states and the world towards stabilizing population; to influence population-related legislation; to mobilize members to take action. Population connection's (pc) global partners program (gpp) began in 2020. At that time, we had just five (5) ngos, large and small, well-financed and not. Pc gave small and medium sized grants to help subsidize the gps' worked and work with families and individuals struggling with poverty and unemployment, unintended pregnancy, illness, and other life-threatening problems. Today, the gpp consists of 21 ngos, who get small and medium sized grants and donations once a year. At this time, the program is hale and hearty, and succeeds in helping the global partners oversee their ngos' vital programs related to phe.phe, or "population, health, and education," is our organization's calling card. It's also shorthand for our mission of being the "[n]ational grassroots population organization that educates young people and advocates progressive action to stabilize world population at a level that can be sustained by earth's resources." we work on the population issue, which is interrelated with global health and education issues. Most of our gp's are ngos working on some aspect of phe. Other ngos work within one of the phe components, either education or health. However, more importantly, these components are so closely related that they tend to cross each other more times than not. We have several ways to recruit global partners. 99% of global partners are located in latin america and africa, where we have many contacts made from our long history of working on reproductive health and rights as well as our environmental actions. We also have a network among other nonprofits from the united states, and oher countries, doijng work similar to ours. The global partners are part of our network, and sometimes refer other nonprofits to the program. We also hear about ngos via cold emailsfounders of an NGO, or affiliates of an NGO--who email us, asking us to take them into the global partners program. Other ways we can find potential gp's are serendipitous. For example, one of our longer-term gp's is the nasaruni school for maasai girls. We heard about the school because one of our staff members knew one of the school's board members. Our process is when we find out about an NGO, we vet them. Many of our gp's work with young womenthat's the education part of phe, when schools and activities provide girls with education about their own healthcare. Another group, in kenya, called hope for kenya slum adolescent initiative (hksai), also works with adolescent and young adult women. Before starting hksai, maxine ouyo, worked with population connection on various projects, including traveling to campuses to speak about our issues. When melvine felt compelled to found an NGO with girls as its focus, we were supportive and added the organization to the gpp. We look for ngos embedded in, and organic to, their community. Many group missions are similar, like improving the futures of children via classroom-type education, and offering adult education that improves adult lives, via financial stability. The end goal, of course, of the NGO activities is to nurture healthy families; bring or improve literacy to the community; and create and maintain easy access to health care, including reproductive and maternal health. Global partners have a few obligations when working with us. As noted, the NGO's get grants; in exchange, they sign a "grant agreement." the global partners are required to send population connection an annual grant report and accompanying financial information once a year. In the report, they describe how they spent their grant, and note some of the differences when they had the grants. They often describe "accomplishments" around their work, and "challenges" to thei

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 62.8%; rating input score 63
• Program expense ratio: 77.1%; rating input score 77
• Fundraising efficiency: $7.85 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
  • Compensation committee: Pass
  • Independent consultant: Missing
  • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
  • Written employment contract: Missing
  • Compensation survey or study: Pass
  • Board or committee approval: Pass
• Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
  • 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: Pass
  • May require repayment: Fail
• Grant itemization coverage: 97.6%; rating input score 98; 28th percentile among comparable filings
• 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Pass
  • Document-retention policy: Pass
  • CEO compensation review process: Pass
  • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
  • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
  • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
  • Audit committee oversight: Pass
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

• Operating margin: 21.4%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.99; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 13.2%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings