Project Return Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222552501
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Westport, CT, USA
Phone
2032228129
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Residential Mental Health Treatment

Reported finances

Revenue
$83,215
Expenses
$197,371
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Cindy Wormser (President)
  • Tessa Gilmore-Barnes (Interim Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Cindy Wormser (President)
  • Jason Mudd (Treasurer)
  • Christian Breheney (Secretary)

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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Project Return empowers girls to rebuild their lives, one day at a time. We create a safe, structured and nurturing environment where adolescent girls and young women in crisis can heal and grow. By providing unconditional love, encouraging resiliency, building self-esteem, and teaching life skills, Project Return inspires girls to hope and realize their dreams.

What it reported doing in 2016

Clinical Care Services: The Organization provides clinical care services, which is unique in its therapeutic and psychodynamic approach. The program deals with a range of traumas such as emotional, sexual and physical abuse, loss of one or both parents, severe neglect, and psychological disorders. The clinical care services include therapeutic groups for the residents, counseling of current residents and their families, case management, training of staff mentors and interns, and evaluation of residents.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% 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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 88.1%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -137.2%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -30.7% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.8% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -15.2% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 88.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $174K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 19 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2009 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.