Together1heart

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472321469
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3104419635
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$78,971
Expenses
$47,146
Assets
$21,147
Liabilities
$43,200

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANNALYNNE MCCORD (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ANNALYNNE MCCORD (PRESIDENT)
  • CLAUDE HILDENBRAND (DIRECTOR)
  • SAMIRA PANAH (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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We work to care for and secure the rights of young women and girls who are victims or at risk of being victims of slavery and to successfully recover, educate, train and reintegrate them into mainstream society through financial independence in a sustainable and innovative manner.we accomplish this by helping and teaching them how to achieve financial independence through sustainable careers. We then welcome them to become a part of our survivor empowerment network.

What it reported doing in 2020

Together1heart supports the recovery, education/training, reintegration and sustainability of women and children survivors of the sex trade, violence, abuse, rape, indentured slavery and/or exploitation in cambodia. Together1heart works to educate and raise awareness about human trafficking/sex trafficking.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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: 38
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 28.7%; rating input score 29
  • Program expense ratio: 48.1%; rating input score 48
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.32 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 40.3%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.45; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.04; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -66.9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -25.4% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -36% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 28.7% of revenue deployed · 48.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $23K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2016 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 29/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.