Project Return Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
621058325
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Nashville, TN, USA
Phone
6153279654
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,896,194
Expenses
$5,270,091
Assets
$9,720,510
Liabilities
$4,456,441

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KELLY HARTER (PRESIDENT)
  • VIRGINIA BURNETT (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • RICO X (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • RICO X (CEO): $153,334 total reported compensation
  • ELIZABETH HAYES (COO): $134,915 total reported compensation
  • ROSALIE RUSSO (CFO): $60,867 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

People who have just been released from prison are typically stigmatized, overlooked, and pigeonholed by society. When they walk(continued on schedule o)into project return, they discover that here they are valued, heard, and encouraged. While reduction of incarceration and other criminal justice reform continues to elude the u.s., project return serves as part of the solution. Project return is solely dedicated to the successful new beginnings of people returning to our community after incarceration. Now in its 45th year of service to Tennessee, project return provides reentry assistance, including workforce development, to hundreds of men and women each year.

What it reported doing in 2024

Pro housing: the typical housing trajectory we see for our people is that they are fortunate to reside in temporary housing for the first few months of their release, but it eventually comes to an end and they must look for affordable rental opportunities. Despite the fact that these individuals earn satisfactory wages and are reliable taxpayers in our community, stigma often leads to exclusion from the private market, as landlords are free to use conviction history as a basis for rejecting their applications. It can be practically impossible for them to get on a lease, despite their steady income, solid references, careful financial management, and overall wherewithal. (continued on schedule o)additionally, research shows that those who have been to prison just once experience homelessness at a rate 7 times higher than the general public, while those who have been incarcerated multiple times experience homelessness at a rate 13 times higher than those who haven't been incarcerated at all. Recognizing this severe need for accessible affordable rental housing for people with a conviction history, and following the success of proe project return launched its second social enterprise, proh (project return opportunities for housing), in 2017. Through proh, project return acquires and rehabs modest, scattered-site (anti-enclave), multi-family properties, which are available to rent for those who have come through project return's programs. Since launch in 2017, project return has purchased and rehabbed 38 units (duplexes and triplexes) in sites scattered across nashville and chattanooga for rent to people who are leading successful new lives after incarceration. Speaking to the success of proh, recidivism rates of our proh tenants is 3% after eight years of operation. By providing safe, stable, permanent housing, individuals can lead productive, successful lives and leave prison behind.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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 available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.6%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 63.6%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $24.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -7.6%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.84; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.46; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.6%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.6% of revenue deployed · 63.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $153K · 16 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.