Restorative Justice Project Maine

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261508416
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Belfast, ME, USA
Phone
2073382742
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Counseling, Support Groups

Reported finances

Revenue
$623,564
Expenses
$573,776
Assets
$289,801
Liabilities
$4,682

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Abdi Awad (Director)
  • Lael Sorensen (Director)
  • Melissa Bellew (Director)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Restorative Justice Project Maine facilitates compassionate responses to crime and wrong doing that fosters support and healing for the victim; accountablility, intervention and reintegration of the offender: and renewal and saftey for the community.

What it reported doing in 2024

RJP Maine's Youth Harm Repair program is supported by a contract with the Maine Department of Corrections, Division of Juvenile Services. Our team of Restorative Justice Managers act as facilitators, receiving referrals from various sources, including Prosecutorial District 6 Assistant District Attorney and Juvenile Community Corrections Officers and building effective staff and volunteer teams to facilitate impactful restorative processes to support young people through their journeys towards healing and accountability.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 61% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.9%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 65.7%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $36.69 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd 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: 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 8%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.51; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.9% of revenue deployed · 65.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $377K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.