The or Foundation Ltd

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271488092
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Cambridge, MD, USA
Phone
2404609516
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,379,584
Expenses
$5,031,129
Assets
$12,648,200
Liabilities
$12,093

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Elizabeth Rae Ricketts (FOUNDER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ESHE HAMME (EMPLOYEE): $120,308 total reported compensation
  • Elizabeth Rae Ricketts (FOUNDER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $70,254 total reported compensation
  • James Branson Skinner (FOUNDER/EXECUTIVE PRODUCER): $70,166 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 Or Foundation provides critical ecosystem health services and community education and economic empowerment programming, that along with material technology and transformation and public engagement with citizens beyond their roles as consumers, drives toward a justice-led circular textiles economy.

What it reported doing in 2024

We operate a paid apprenticeship program for young women leaving the dangerous job of head carrying secondhand clothing, which includes healthcare and education. We provide emergency relief for members of the secondhand clothing market in Ghana who encounter crisis. We install and maintain fire extinguishers across the market and operate long-range business transformation classes to bolster financial literacy skills. In addition we conduct weekly beach cleanups and perform material research and development to transform waste into new products and economic livelihoods.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 66% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 46
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.8%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 91.8%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3,492.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 78.6%; rating input score 79; 0th 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: 2.3%; rating input score 2; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 40%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.51; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.2%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 55.5% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 39.7% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 48.9% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.8% of revenue deployed · 91.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $120K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 29 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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 57/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.