Us Blood Donors Org

What it reported doing in 2025

After documenting proof the power USBloodDonors.org has to increase blood donations in the State of Utah; then later building a cadre of 'standby' donor/social media (word-of-mouth) volunteers in Utah and California; we focused on engaging major U.S. CEOs with help from our Advisory Board members with national (and international) influence. We succeeded in getting the attention of a major U.S. (and world) employer with hundreds of thousands of employees. Ours and their security teams worked together as the next step, verifying the security of our internet arm. Yet after the major CEO's assigned lieutenant finished a sabbatical, she unceremoniously dropped our joint project. Aforesaid Advisory Board members, along with the Executive Director, continue in our efforts to involve one, or hopefully more, of the nation's most influential people with us, to use our shared need of blood and blood-related donations to engage a majority of U.S. residents in our 'standby donor', lifesaving, life-improving plan. Using a Nobel laureate's math in connection with renowned U.S. surgeons and our USBD plan, said influential people could save and improve tens of thousands of lives in the short-term (less than one year) with as little as one phone call. Moreover, utilizing that same Nobel math, billions of dollars can be saved on U.S. healthcare to begin to reverse the unsustainable, skyrocketing U.S. Federal debt. In time, using this same 'standby donor' concept in other nations, with appropriate name changes, millions of lives can be saved and improved, saving trillions of dollars in healthcare costs/national budgets. Due to input from one of our influential Advisory Board members, we began using AI in our approaches.

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 95.8%; rating input score 96
• Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
• 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: Limited
• Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

• Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
  • Whistleblower policy: Fail
  • Document-retention policy: Fail
  • CEO compensation review process: Fail
  • 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: 6.1%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.51; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 76.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 14.7% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings