The Unify Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
823605707
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Willowick, OH, USA
Phone
8884106444
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Service Clubs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$47,377
Expenses
$22,321
Assets
$3,159,636
Liabilities
$4,055,553

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEPHEN J MCHALE (UNPAID CEO)

People named in this filing

  • CHARLES LOUGHEED III (DIRECTOR)
  • DAVID SYLVAN (DIRECTOR)
  • DR MICHAEL BASTON (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The unify project is leveraging advanced technologies to unify socioeconomic data at scale and provide insights about how to achieve inclusive economic growth and shared prosperity.

What it reported doing in 2023

In 2023, the unify project continued to aggregate, integrate and analyze data and provide information and insights generated throughout the year to its supported organizations, and to the broader community, to assist with their charitable purposes. The unify project's insight generation efforts were focused on identifying and defining the structural determinants of well-being and determining which, and how, systemic issues could be attacked at the causal level. Following a determination of which system flaws negatively affecting inclusive prosperity could be positively impacted broadly and expeditiously, the unify project leveraged the insights generated to develop and patent proprietary technologies designed to serve as the foundation for a system to assist the under-served in their efforts to secure employment. The unify project did this work collaboratively with its supported organizations and the community at large. The resulting system recognized that current workforce systems provide little support to this cohort and provided a sophisticated technology-based system to correct fundamental system flaws. The unify project also utilized the insights to begin the development of a variety of additional initiatives in collaboration with our supported organizations to address other systemic issues, principally issues which can be impacted by leveraging data, analytics and technology to address issues perpetuating disparity and inhibiting inclusive prosperity.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 23
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 18.5%; rating input score 18
  • Program expense ratio: 39.2%; rating input score 39
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 52.9%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 141.55; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.28; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -28.8% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -22% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 49% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 18.5% of revenue deployed · 39.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $9K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2018 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.