Future Generations Graduate School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204093450
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Franklin, WV, USA
Phone
3043582000
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,131,097
Expenses
$1,007,740
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIEL TAYLOR (EXECUTIVE DI): $75,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Future generations teaches and enables a process for equitable community change that integrates environmental conservation with development. As an international school for communities offering graduate degrees in applied community change and conservation, we provide training and higher education through on-site and distance learning. Toward this end, we support field- based research, promote successes that provide for rapid expansion and build partnerships with an evolving network of communities that are working together to improve their lives and the lives of generations yet to come.

What it reported doing in 2016

To provide grant funds to sister organizations to assist with administering its programs. China: partnership continued with future generations china. The primary activity was collaboration to support environmental action and protection of the watershed by a village that is located adjacent to the major water supply for beijing, china's national capital. The secondary activity was to continue the long-standing support to the pendeba society and its community-based work within the qomonlangma (mt everest) national nature preserve.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 64% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 67% for direct work, 26% for grants, and 7% for affiliated organizations.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.2%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 80.6%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.9%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.4%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.1% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.8% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.2% of revenue deployed · 80.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $812K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $75K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.