The Fund for Peace Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
132550978
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2022153477
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Peace and Security

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,002,947
Expenses
$984,183
Assets
$180,490
Liabilities
$126,893

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAULINE H BAKER (PRESIDENT EM)
  • PAUL TURNER (PRESIDENT -)

Highest reported compensation

  • PAUL TURNER (PRESIDENT -): $159,947 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Building bridges across diverse sectors, and developing innovative technologies and tools for policy makers. A leader in the conflict assessment and early warning field, the fund for peace focuses on the problems of weak and failing states. Its objective is to create practical tools and approaches for conflict mitigation that are useful to decision- makers.

What it reported doing in 2023

Philanthropic foundations, governments and public foundations, and corporate foundations - the fund for peace has a number of programs that seek to use unique and innovative methodologies to better understand conflict dynamics, and then with that improved understanding bring together diverse stakeholder groups to find practical peacebuilding solutions. For over 19 years, ffp has produced the fragile states index, an annual ranking of social, economic, and political pressure in 179 countries worldwide. The index is then used by policy makers, practitioners, academics, civil society organizations, and journalists in making better informed decisions with regard to political risk and resourcing humanitarian development. Ffp also provides training on these methodologies to practitioners from government, multilateral institutions, and civil society who in turn improve their own assessment capacity and understanding of conflict dynamics. At a national level, ffp trains local civil society groups on understanding and reporting conflict, and with that knowledge, builds local networks that then focus on mitigating conflict when it erupts. These programs also attempt to harness the latest cutting edge technology, such as using conflict and systems mapping. Ffp also focuses on specific vulnerable groups, employing similar methodologies to provide communities with the tools to prevent violence against women and girls.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 71% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 53%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.9%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.7; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.3%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.9% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52% of revenue deployed · 53% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $522K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $160K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2023
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.