Bioenergy Deployment Consortium Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272029351
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Middleton, WI, USA
Phone
6083320191
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$93,380
Expenses
$155,606
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MASOOD AKHTAR (PRESIDENT)
  • BEN THORP (VICE PRESIDENT & CHAIRMAN)

Highest reported compensation

  • ERIC HORN (ADMINISTRATOR): $35,000 total reported compensation
  • MASOOD AKHTAR (PRESIDENT): $33,000 total reported compensation
  • BEN THORP (VICE PRESIDENT & CHAIRMAN): $33,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote deployment of commercially viable advanced biofuels and biochemical technologies that do not require long term subsidy and to optimize total system energy efficiency and to build industry readiness for the bio-economy through education and brokering partnerships.

What it reported doing in 2020

Bdc is a very unique organization, unlike any other, through its ability to promote and assist in the deployment of commercially viable, advanced biofuel and biochemical technologies that do not require subsidy. We are non-biased in our approach to promoting deployment and do our own due diligence, providing trustworthy information. We advocate for promising technologies in a number of ways, including seeking to broker partnerships, facilitate meetings with government agencies, assisting in the acquisition of government funding for existing and new technologies, and writing pertinent articles in major publications. We provide opportunities for members to meet and hear timely updates, and to network, by providing two symposiums per year combined with a tour of a cutting edge bio-process. Bdc continues to grow as a national organization, but has international members all over the globe.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 23
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 75.2%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 7th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -66.6%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 86.1%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.5% per year; rating input score 0; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -27.2% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 75.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $117K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $35K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2013 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.