E3CO Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
223608014
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Cranbury, NJ, USA
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$0
Expenses
$6,348
Assets
$27,936
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Harry Janes Ph D (Chairman)
  • Martin A Spigner Esq (Treasurer)
  • Mark Trumpbour (Director)

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

E3CO is a non-profit educational organization. All revenue is allocated from the NJ State Legislature and distributed to E3CO by Rutgers U which permits E3CO to provide educational, economic and community development through joint projects.

What it reported doing in 2014

Grants were previously made and continue to be made to the Rutgers University Foundation for the specific formation of the E3CO, Inc. Undergraduate Experimental Laboratory Fund at the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences as well as the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station at Rutgers University, both of which further the mission of E3CO.

Operating model

Revenue model
No positive adjusted resources. The filing reports no positive adjusted operating resources.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 12
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Limited
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.4; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.