Thai Village Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
753240062
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2012, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Deerfield, WI, USA
Phone
6087648198
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$338,034
Expenses
$477,838
Assets
$391,554
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELIZABETH MEISTER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • NANCY HUWE (BOARD SECRETARY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ERIC DUWE (PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD)
  • JOYCE LEHMAN (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELIZABETH MEISTER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $27,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Empower disadvantaged people in thailand in a dignified manner with educational opportunities, including vocational skills training and biblical training, for the purpose of increasing their ability to be self-sufficient, to be healthy, and to contribute positively to society in the future.

What it reported doing in 2024

Vocational training program - thai village provides dignified work to at-risk and low-income individuals. The artisans' interests, needs, and skills are considered and matched with available work. Training to make high-quality products is an essential part of our vocational training program. Through this program, each artisan is able to earn income and expand their ability to support their family. 54 artisans and 1 community group benefited from this program

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 91% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 85.3%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • 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: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -41.4%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.7%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 26.3% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 85.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $408K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $27K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.