Project RED

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463924933
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
San Antonio, TX, USA
Phone
2109637070
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$694,978
Expenses
$865,131
Assets
$426,703
Liabilities
$1,840

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Scott Ackerson (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kara Wilson Garcia (Executive Dir.): $95,973 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Project RED provides support for Asociacion Proyecto RED, an El Salvador closely related not for profit that provides holistic support for impoverished families and advocates on behalf of vulnerable and abused children.

What it reported doing in 2025

Asociacin Proyecto RED provides direct services to vulnerable children and families in El Salvador through a trauma informed and person centered model. Its two core programs, Family Strengthening and Child Advocacy, offer holistic and individualized support. The Family Strengthening program serves families affected by trauma through psychosocial care, material and spiritual support, and access to basic services. The Child Advocacy program intervenes on behalf of children in high risk situations, working toward their protection and long term placement in safe and stable environments. This is achieved through reporting, legal support, and collaboration with public and private sector partners.

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 91% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 87.6%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -24.5%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.49; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.1%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 87.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $758K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $96K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.