Advanced Virtual Engine Test Cell Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202553414
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Beavercreek, OH, USA
Phone
9374297601
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fire Prevention

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$172,495
Expenses
$596,512
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CASSIE BARLOW (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ATIC))

People named in this filing

  • CASSIE BARLOW (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ATIC))

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 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Advanced virtual engine test cell, inc.'s (avetec)mission was to solve complex challenges critical to american innovation in defense systems, modeling, and simulation, data intensive computing, energy, cyber security, and workforce developments, allowing our clients to compete in the global market.

What it reported doing in 2014

Wsri was an agreement entered into between wright state applied research corporation and avetec to support the aerospace professional development center (apdc) by providing individualized counseling and career assistance to applicants of apdc to the services available and guide them to the appropriate next step to prepare for and enter careers in the aerospace field in Ohio. An additional part of the agreement was for avetec to support the state uas center initiative by providing technical suppport, planning, consulting, and development in data management architecture.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 72% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 24
  • Sustainability: 9
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 66.4%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 19th 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: Limited
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -245.8%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -95.4% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -92.2% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 66.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $396K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2013 to 2014
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.