Asbog Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261834173
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2011, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Cayce, SC, USA
Phone
8037398881
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,010
Expenses
$26,701
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN W WILLIAMS (PRESIDENT)
  • MARK TAYLOR (VICE-PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JOHN W WILLIAMS (PRESIDENT)
  • MARK TAYLOR (VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • RICK L ERICKSEN (TREASURER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The asbog foundation was formed in 2007 to provide financial support for the activities of the national association of state boards of geology ("asbog"). The foundation by-laws provide that monies received from sponsorships by companies and organizations is to be invested. Interest income earned on investments will be first used to pay the costs of the foundation. After those costs are recovered, the net interest income is to be provided to asbog.

What it reported doing in 2016

Direct financial support to the national association of state boards of geology ("asbog"), a 501(c)(6) organization that authors, administers, scores, defends and maintains relevant questions for the national geology examinations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 8
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -565.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd 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 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11.6% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2013 to 2016
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.