The International Refugee Rights Initiative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201408831
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
6468671991
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Civil Rights

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$724,854
Expenses
$529,503
Assets
$863,103
Liabilities
$16,725

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ACHIENG AKENA (EXECTUTIVE DIRECTOR): $75,600 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To enhance the protection of rights of the displaced worldwide by the provision of advice and assistance on the application of international law, the conducting of research on the interpretation and application of international law and the training of those working with the displaced and other activities, as appropriate.

What it reported doing in 2020

Addressing the plight of the displaced: irri responds to the needs of the displaced in africa by, monitoring particular protection problems in the areas where we operate, promoting policies at the international, regional and national levels which better protect the rights of the displaced and responding to the needs of refugees for legal representation. We respond to the need for legal protection both by providing direct accompaniment, facilitating referrals and providing support to legal aid providers through information resources and expert advice to allow them to provide more effective assistance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 80% 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

SUPPORTED - 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.5%; rating input score 45
  • Program expense ratio: 60.9%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1,426.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 27%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.63; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.3%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -17.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.7% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.5% of revenue deployed · 60.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $322K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $76K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2020
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.