Atip Foundation Llc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
452803441
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2022
Location
Arlington, TX, USA
Phone
8172289888
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$281,774
Expenses
$309,450
Assets
$20,086
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The atip foundation's purpose is to serve as a catalyst for rural economic development, through the use of usda research outcomes, market assessment, and patented technologies. The foundation supports a strategic approach to the formation of collaborative partnerships, facilitating and enabling the integration of industry, academic, and government research and discovery with venture capital and talent and know-how. The primary objective of atip foundation is to create nationally recognized, investor based consortiums of agri-businesses, universities, economic development entities, and venture funds for the development, implementation, and commercialization of usda technology discoveries, in order to develop, and expand the agriculture industry. The foundation specifically seeks to improve the competitiveness and profitability of the agriculture and agri-business industry sectors.

What it reported doing in 2022

The foundation has formed a public-private partnership with ilsi north america and the u.s. Department of agriculture-agricultural research service to obtain comprehensive food composition data from the food manufacturers and make it publicly available through an enhanced usda national nutrient database to those who utilize such data including the federal agencies, the research community, proprietary databases and end users, and the food industry. During the fiscal year ending 9/30/23, the foundation continued work on established initiatives in Texas, California, and Ohio, utilizing usda research outcomes, to foster regional rural economic development from federal research outcomes. The foundation conducted forums in partnership with the federal biomass research & development board (br&d), and the u.s. Department of agriculture(usda) in 8 states to provide information about br&d and usda research outcomes for the purpose of creating jobs and economic development; and obtain input from public and private sector stakeholders for br&d and usda. The foundation established replicable models in partnership with usda to foster rural economic development utilizing federal research outcomes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

STRONG - 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 revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.8%; rating input score 98
  • 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -9.8%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.5% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $303K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2013 to 2022
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.