The Advocacy Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522333129
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2024222479
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
International Human Rights

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$148,439
Expenses
$182,646
Assets
$52,562
Liabilities
$4,192

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • IAIN GUEST (SECRETARY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • IAIN GUEST (SECRETARY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $19,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The nbsp; advocacy nbsp; project nbsp; supports nbsp; community nbsp; based nbsp; initiatives nbsp; for nbsp; social nbsp; justice nbsp; and nbsp; peace nbsp; in nbsp; the nbsp; global nbsp; south nbsp; through nbsp; research nbsp; fundraising nbsp; and nbsp; technical nbsp; support

What it reported doing in 2024

The advocacy project helped ten community based organizations to work for social change in 2024 in seven countries. In india we helped to fund a program to help tribal women reduce their exposure to malaria. We raised funds for refugees in thailand who fled from the war in myanmar. Also in asia we helped a partner in central nepal to research the impact of caste on the tharu people and develop projects. We also supported a program in vietnam to help families that were still recovering from the impact of the war. In africa we supported two community driven campaigns in kenya one helped women in the settlements of nairobi to compost their food waste and grow vegetables in kitchen gardens the second project brought together herders from the pokot and ilchamus tribes to take common action against the threat from drought and conflict. In zimbabwe we offered advice and funding to help a long standing partner protect girls against early marriage and put vulnerable girls through school. Our partner in uganda installed toilets handwashing and a changing room for girl students at a primary school in gulu district. Finally we supported two projects in the us for high school students. We funded composting at two school kitchens in Pennsylvania and supported students at a school in atlanta Georgia who raised money for the education of girls in zimbabwe. We recruited five graduate students peace fellows from us universities to volunteer with our partners in uganda india kenya and thailand. Finally we continued to exhibit and commission embroidered stories that promoted the work of partners in the global south.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 40% for direct work, and 60% for 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: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 73
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 81.8%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $23.02 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • 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: 87.7%; rating input score 88; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -23%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.29; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.4%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.2% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 81.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $149K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $19K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 33 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.