Project Perfect World Foundation Inc C/o Doug Beck President

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043546835
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Kaysville, UT, USA
Phone
9725815109
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health - General and Rehabilitative N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$425,060
Expenses
$460,369
Assets
$125,373
Liabilities
$24,566

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOUGLAS BECK (PRESIDENT)
  • CAROLYN MERIWETHER (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DOUGLAS BECK (PRESIDENT)
  • CAROLYN MERIWETHER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • RICHARD M SCHWEND MD (MEDICAL 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. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To improve the lives of underprivileged children by sending medical teams to poverty-stricken areas to perform maxillofacial, dental and orthopedic surgery on children.

What it reported doing in 2024

Project perfect world is a healthcare humanitarian effort supported by the association for healthcare resource & materials management and other donors. The organization has improved the lives of thousands of underprivileged children since its inception. Every year project perfect world is able to send medical teams to poverty-stricken areas to perform maxillofacial, dental, and other surgery on children.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 94% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.2%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 86.9%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.3%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.3% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.2% of revenue deployed · 86.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $400K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.