Center on Global Interests

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
331224988
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2029732832
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$102,548
Expenses
$612,108
Assets
$77,742
Liabilities
$18,548

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NIKOLAI V ZLOBIN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • NIKOLAI V ZLOBIN (PRESIDENT): $276,858 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL PURCELL (SECRETARY): $29,592 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See schedule othe center on global interests (cgi) is an independent, not-for-profit, public research institution dedicated to providing objective research on russian-american relations and political, economic, social and cultural issues related to the u.s., russia and former soviet union countries, among other major world powers.

What it reported doing in 2016

Rising experts task force: brings together young professionals working and/or conducting research in the field of eurasian studies for monthly discussion events with experts in the field. Through collaborative discourse with their peers and editorial mentorship, participants also have the opportunity to publish their original research.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 44
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 5
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 61%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: -496.9%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.13; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 50.1%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -12.4% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 61% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $374K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $277K · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2012 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.