Project Enterprise

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133907579
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Bronx, NY, USA
Phone
9178193182
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Business and Industry

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$303,334
Expenses
$535,878
Assets
$192,502
Liabilities
$713,856

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CATHERINE BARNETT (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • CATHERINE BARNETT (PRESIDENT/CEO): $50,822 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of Project Enterprise is to support and develop entrepreneurs and small businesses in under-resourced communities in New York City. By providing micro-loans, business development services and networking opportunities, Project Enterprise helps entrepreneurs increase their standard of living, create jobs for their communities, and build financial assets. the organiztaion also provides TRAINING AND PEER SUPPORT TO MICRO-ENTREPRENEURS IN NEW YORK CITY, WHO ARE AT OR BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL, IN HOPES OF BUILDING FINANCIAL SECURITY. THE ORGANIZATION FOSTERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN LOW INCOME AND SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED NEIGHBORHOODS OF NEW YORK CITY THROUGH ITS MICRO-LENDING PROGRAMS.

What it reported doing in 2014

The Organization fosters community development in low income and socially disadvantaged neighborhoods of New York City through its micro-lending programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 80.3%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.64 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -76.7%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.36; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 3.71; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.5%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 32.8% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -23.6% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -25.8% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 80.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $430K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $51K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.