The More Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203770594
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
South Jordan, UT, USA
Phone
8012081140
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$945,734
Expenses
$1,110,268
Assets
$519,749
Liabilities
$12,411

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MAURICIO BELORA (BOARD PRESIDENT)
  • ANDREA BARNES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANDREA BARNES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $48,486 total reported compensation
  • CHRISTA EKKER (GENERAL MANAGER): $46,898 total reported compensation
  • MINDY RELYEA (GENERAL MANAGER): $30,147 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We seek to provide impoverished people, especially children, with the tools necessary to become self sufficient. We are a non-denominational organization that adheres to a philosophy of love and compassion in an effort to empower those that society has left behind.

What it reported doing in 2014

We focus on breaking the cycles of poverty in brazil by providing services in education, shelter care and major home repair. We work with the impoverished living in slums outside of rio de janeiro, brazil. We operate programs benefitting over 1,300 people. These projects include the operation of two children's programs, an adult vocational program, seven shelter homes and a home repair project.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 61% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 99% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 52
  • Accountability: 37
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.3%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 76.9%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $38.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 22nd 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • 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: 48.9%; rating input score 49; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -17.4%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -20.1% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -42% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11.7% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.3% of revenue deployed · 76.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $854K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $48K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2011 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.