Project Beacon

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
872278608
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Oak Ridge, TX, USA
Phone
8329309560
Rating
35
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Independent Housing for People with Disabilities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$758,844
Expenses
$312,944
Assets
$738,580
Liabilities
$7,522

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEVIN GERRITY (PRESIDENT, CO-FOUNDER)
  • DR AMY WOOD (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CINDY MELTON (VICE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY)
  • KELLY BAUGHMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CO-FOUNDER)

Highest reported compensation

  • KELLY BAUGHMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CO-FOUNDER): $100,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Project beacon builds a community of belonging where adults with autism and other neurodiversities can play, learn, work and live.

What it reported doing in 2024

Project beacon established a strategic partnership with inspire nd which was able to enhance and accelerate the services available to neurodiverse adults in our community. Project beacon secured a space to establish the beacon access center which will be a transofrmational hub to support adults across the autism spectrum. Set to open in may 2025, the beacon access center will feature a vocational skills studio, a zen zone activity area and an independence lab, all tailored to help individuals reach their full potential in a supportive and enriching environment. Project beacon launched a study of needs of montgomery county residents with austism and/or intellectual and/or developmental disabilities. Partnered with tri county behavioral healthcare, this study was able to analyze local needs, preferences and demographics. The final results will be published in april 2025.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 7
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 16
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 6.3%; rating input score 6
  • Program expense ratio: 9.9%; rating input score 10
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th 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: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: Limited
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 58.8%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.36; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: 6.3% of revenue deployed · 9.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $31K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $100K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 6/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.