Project Worthmore
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 450933835
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2012
- Location
- Aurora, CO, USA
- Phone
- 7202891418
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Service Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $6,126,125
- Expenses
- $4,526,042
- Assets
- $7,292,826
- Liabilities
- $2,111,709
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- DR MANISHA MAKHIJA (DENTAL DIREC): $220,284 total reported compensation
- HOA TRAN (DENTIST): $208,025 total reported compensation
- FRANK ANELLO (EXECUTIVE DI): $139,732 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide programs that foster community, self-sufficiency and increase quality of life among denver-area refugees. From our start offering makeshift english classes in living rooms, we now offer six comprehensive programs to thousands of refugee clients. Around half of our staff are from the refugee community, helping us to better listen, empower and support those who have come here to rebuild their lives. Strategically located off of east colfax, project worthmore is in the heart of the refugee community and therefore easily accessed by our clients. Our team and impact continue to grow as we play a role in supporting people during the worst refugee crisis since world war ii.
What it reported doing in 2024
Community navigators help with essential services and programs that can often be overwhelming for newcomers - enrolling children in school, applying for government benefits, finding meaningful employment, navigating the healthcare system, and much more. Understanding neighbors is a comprehensive program rooted in mutual respect and principles of language equity. Composed of activities, classes and events, understanding neighbors connects newcomers and english language learners and the broader welcoming community. ----------------- continued on schedule o ----------------------
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 95% 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.
- 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. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 68
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 96
- Sustainability: 60
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 60.1%; rating input score 60
- Program expense ratio: 80.9%; rating input score 81
- Fundraising efficiency: $33.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- 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: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 26.1%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.61; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 20.2%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 17.2% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 20.2% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 32.3% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 60.1% of revenue deployed · 80.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 16 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $220K · 21 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.