Foundation for Environmental and Economic Progress

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521723174
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2029551500
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Private Grantmaking Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$175,078
Expenses
$155,924
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EILEEN REYNOLDS (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • EILEEN REYNOLDS (PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID C SMITH (TREASURER)

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

To promote responsible and

What it reported doing in 2014

Promoted the interest of the business community in the area of environmental regulation and land use issues through contact with federal, state and local agencies and officials.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 12
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.9%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 93.1%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd 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; 6th 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.9%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.9% of revenue deployed · 93.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 8 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 10 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 1 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.