The Face To Face Project Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 263056129
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- New York, NY, USA
- Phone
- 9172080456
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- AIDS
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $233,621
- Expenses
- $319,123
- Assets
- $501,326
- Liabilities
- $10,778
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Kenneth W Wong (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Kenneth W Wong (Executive Director): $43,705 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 Face To Face Project believes the best way to break the cycle of poverty is to nurture self-reliance, and the first step toward self-reliance is to making food security accessible to everyone. See Schedule O
What it reported doing in 2024
In Malawi, to run program aimed at creating productive home victory gardens and victory maize fields using permaculture and sustainable farming practices. The goal of all facets of this program is to build individuals confidence in self-reliance, and community ownership. The Organization is the primary funder of the Face-to-Face AIDS Project Malawi, based in Lilongwe, whose sole purpose is to carry out the work of The Face To Face Project, Inc. Face To Face AIDS Project Malawi administers, monitors, and evaluates grant programs on the ground, and has a 10-member staff.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 73% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 69
- Sustainability: 27
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 73.6%; rating input score 74
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Pass
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Pass
- 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: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -36.6%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.57; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 13.7%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -4.3% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 73.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $235K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $44K · 13 people listed
- Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 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.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.