Friends of Conservation Carpathia in the United States - Fcc Us Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
934980051
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Durham, NC, USA
Phone
4159372745
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$999,635
Expenses
$1,452,221
Assets
$55,043
Liabilities
$5,967

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Silke Knebel (Managing Director): $93,600 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our purpose is to contribute to the conservation restoration and protection of the natural ecosystem for the benefit of biodiversity public benefit local communities and future generations. Included within this mission is to educate the American public about conservation and to support conservation and environmental education programs about ecosystem restoration wildlife preservation and conservation enterprise programs.

What it reported doing in 2025

Land Conservation and Management - to guarantee the protection of forests and anti-poaching activities through purchasing land restore clear-cuts and degraded habitats build infrastructure for conservation and conduct environmental and wildlife research to improve conservation programs

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 95% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 98
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.6%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: $94.97 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Limited
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 77.6%; rating input score 78; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -45.3%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.04; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 76.7% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -18.4% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -160.5% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $94K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 41 of 43 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.