Ukrainian Refugee Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
881318523
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Rafael, CA, USA
Phone
6282524459
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Disaster Preparedness and Relief Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$210,187
Expenses
$178,828
Assets
$98,737
Liabilities
$63,698

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Alina Lubensky (President)

People named in this filing

  • Sergei Lubensky (Treasurer)
  • Alina Lubensky (President)
  • Olya Anguelov (Secretary)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

URF is a 501(c)(30 nonprofit based in California. We receive funds through private donations and spend them on several programs, providing aid, rescue, and relief for Ukrainian war victims in the form of cash donations for food, shelter, and travel. Our work is carried out by volunteers including the foundation's three board officers and non-related, non-profit organizations. The activities of the organization are carried out in Ukraine and European countries willing to support Ukraine refugees.

What it reported doing in 2024

To maximize operational efficiency and impact, the Ukrainian Refugee Foundation (URF) partners with select nonprofit organizations in the EU and Ukraine that share its humanitarian mission. These organizations are often better positioned to carry out certain activities locally. URF enters into Memoranda of Cooperation with each partner, allowing for the transfer of unrestricted funds when appropriate. Unless specified otherwise, such transfers may be used by the partner for general charitable purposes, provided their activities remain consistent with URFs 501(c)(3) status and the terms of the Memorandum.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 70% for direct work, and 30% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 6
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.7%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 94.9%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: $76.36 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.9%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.55; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.65; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -21.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -27.4% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 36.3% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.7% of revenue deployed · 94.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 8 filed program accomplishments · $170K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.