The Eurasia Foundation

Overview

Mission

Eurasia foundation believes societies function best when people take responsibility for their own civic and economic prosperity. Through cooperation based on mutual respect, our programs equip citizens to define and achieve outcomes of enduring (continued on schedule o)benefit to their communities. While building the leadership skills of women and young people, we help small business become more successful, local government more responsive and civic organizations more effective and resilient.

What it reported doing in 2024

Eurasia programseurasia foundation's programs in the eurasia region (ukraine, russia, central asia, south caucasus) are implemented in partnerships with the ef's legacy foundations (eurasia foundation of central asia, east europe foundations, eurasia partnership foundation, and new eurasia foundation) and other implementing partners. Ef's major programs in the eurasia region focused on capacity building of civil society organizations, supporting a network of resource, research and training centers, facilitating social expertise exchange, building partnerships between universities, and increasing transparency and accountability through e-governance and digital transformation activities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 98% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521780162
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Headquarters
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2022347370
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.6%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 86.3%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Pass
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.4%; rating input score 99; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.7%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.19; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.63; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.6% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.6% of revenue deployed · 86.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $23.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $282K · 30 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2M reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 39 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 annual filings from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

Leadership & pay

30 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ELIZABETH COLL (PRESIDENT): $281,965 total reported compensation
  • ROBERT O'DONOVAN (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT): $241,756 total reported compensation
  • RUSLANBEK MONOLBAEV SR DIR (OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT): $211,998 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: FY2024.