Project ReDirect, Inc.

Legal name: Project Redirect-dc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204910970
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Silver Spring, MD, USA
Phone
2408397333
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
In-Home Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$22,205,097
Expenses
$12,009,348
Assets
$34,293,160
Liabilities
$1,234,236

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • HAROLD KING (EXECUTIVE DI): $360,000 total reported compensation
  • ERIK PRESCOTT (EMPLOYEE): $230,000 total reported compensation
  • RICHARD LARUSSO (EMPLOYEE): $180,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Project ReDirect DC is dedicated to empowering individuals facing life challenges through transformative, person-centered programs (including homeless shelters/day treatment initiatives, arts programs, and vocational rehabilitation) and committed to fostering and strengthening partnerships with immigration service organizations and providers serving asylum-seeking populations.

What it reported doing in 2024

Project redirect has developed a "5 star quality" model program called the "passport club- your ticket to the community and beyond." our program has been lauded as one of the most innovative experiences in the industry. Project redirect provides skill training through an array of activities including but not limited to on-site voluteer assignments, community based classroom settings, travel training with the specific intent of transforming indigent clients into producitve employed citizens. Upon completion of the specified requirements, project redirect assist its cleints with resumes', application preparations, enterviewing skills, job placement and job coaching. Currently, project redirect has clients employed in: - the white house - bureau of engraving- salvation army.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 total spending goes to programs and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.1%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 6th 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 45.9%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.86; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.7%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.8% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
  • Where the money goes: 54.1% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $12M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $360K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.