Equipped to Survive Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
861041222
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2009–2015
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Gilbert, AZ, USA
Phone
4805981501
Rating
34
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,114
Expenses
$7,211
Assets
$2,463
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOUGLAS RITTER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • DOUGLAS RITTER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ERIK BERNSTEIN (SECRETARY)
  • BARRY SCHIFF (MEMBER)

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 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To conduct research in conformity with highest ethical and objective standards and to educate the general public, government and search and rescue communities concerning survival and safety related equipment, supplies and techniques for use in urban, wilderness, aeronautical or maritime environments.

What it reported doing in 2015

Etsf continued its efforts to improve the standards for distress beacons. Research and testing to improve the reliability of personal location beacons and satellite emergency notification devices. Continued work on developing a standard for satellite emergency notification devices and revising standards for plbs and epirbs. Conducted additional beacon tests this year. Continued testing of survival equipment for land, sea, aviation and urban use.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 95% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -75.3%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.34; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -28.5% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -22.8% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -35.7% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2009 to 2015
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.