Service For Peace Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
030388426
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Hamden, CT, USA
Phone
2033390064
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Salvation Army

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$172,344
Expenses
$169,127
Assets
$58,337
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Ocean Phillips (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Ocean Phillips (Executive Director): $41,802 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Service For Peace (SFP) is a non-profit organization that promotes community driven development and transforms communities in the Dominican Republic through shared experiences with Dominican and USA university student volunteers.

What it reported doing in 2024

77 families gained access to safe water through rainwater harvesting systems 10 homes were constructed for vulnerable families 2,500 trees were planted through environmental initiatives 180 school kits and 120 toys were distributed to children in rural communities 30 community leaders were trained, impacting over 450 families 20 entrepreneurs were supported in collaboration with Universidad APEC Strong partnerships were maintained with universities, Rotary clubs, and community organizations These accomplishments reflect the organization's commitment to sustainable development, community empowerment, and long-term impact.Organizational DevelopmentsDuring the reporting period, Service For Peace strengthened its institutional capacity through strategic partnerships with universities, Rotary clubs, government institutions, and private sector allies.Key developments include: Expansion of the LLUVIA rainwater harvesting program Strengthening of youth leadership and community-based initiatives Development of the Neighborhood Councils model Establishment of international university collaborations

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 70% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 89% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 66
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.1%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 79.6%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.33 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.9%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.34; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.7%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -18.2% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -19.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -15.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.1% of revenue deployed · 79.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $135K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $42K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.