Project Mana

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943149718
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018, Form 990-EZ 2009
Location
Incline Village, NV, USA
Phone
7752984161
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$665,487
Expenses
$701,302
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CRAIG WERNER (PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD)
  • TED MCDOWELL (VICE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD)
  • DEIDRE LEDFORD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DEIDRE LEDFORD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $67,423 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To reduce the incidence of hunger and its detrimental effects upon individuals, families, the community and the region. In addition to providing hunger relief, we have developed programs designed to alleviate the causes of hunger.

What it reported doing in 2018

Emergency food distribution: project mana provided food to 2,019 individuals (812 households) through our four weekly emergency food distributions and face program. Of those people served, 73 home-bound community members received weekly food delivery through our food and companionship exchange program or face, and nearly 610 children and 301 seniors living in our community received nutritious food, and 247 families received a delicious turkey and all of the fixings for thanksgiving through our let's talk turkey program. The average number of meals distributed annually was approximately 154,133 meals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.4%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 82.9%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.14 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 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: 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: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.4%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.6%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.9% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.4% of revenue deployed · 82.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $582K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $67K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2010 to 2018
  • 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.