Project Green Fork

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263390333
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2014
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Memphis, TN, USA
Phone
9012921700
Rating
97
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Recycling Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$54,509
Expenses
$46,590
Assets
$42,490
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARGOT MCNEELEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • LAUREL WILLIAMS (TREASURER)
  • MITCH MAJOR (DIRECTOR)
  • MARGOT MCNEELEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Project green fork contributes to a sustainable mid-south by helping reduce environmental impacts, with a focus on strengthening homegrown restaurants. Project green fork certifies restaurants as practicing sustainability based on six steps: have sustainable products in place, set-up recycling programs, kitchen composting, replace toxic cleaners with non-toxic cleaners, complete energy audit and take necessary steps to reduce energy and water consumption, and pollution prevention.

What it reported doing in 2014

Project green fork is the only organization in town helping restaurants reduce their environmental impact. We set up recycling programs and compost programs for each of the restaurants we are currently working with. To date we have certified over 80 locally owned and operated restaurants, of these 57 remain certified. This keeps tons of trash out of our landfills. We help restaurants resource non-toxic cleaners and non styrofoam to-go food containers as well as look for ways through energy audits that they can reduce their water and energy consumption.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 99
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.2%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.5%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.91; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 64.4%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.2% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $54K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 8 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2011 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.