Futuregen Industrial Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510552070
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2027560287
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Energy Resources Conservation and Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$851,272
Expenses
$1,509,604
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KENNETH K HUMPHREYS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • MARK H WILLIFORD (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARK H WILLIFORD (VICE PRESIDENT): $503,711 total reported compensation
  • KENNETH K HUMPHREYS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $302,416 total reported compensation
  • PAUL A WOOD (PROJECT MANAGER): $289,782 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The alliance is organized exclusively for charitable, scientific, and educational purposes. Such purposes shall include the advancement of science in the research, development and demonstration of near zero emmission coal technology, including cooperating with the u.s. Department of energy on futuregen, an electric generation project that is intended to establish the technical and economic feasibility of producing electricity from coal while capturing and sequestering the carbon dioxide generated in the process.

What it reported doing in 2015

Research for the advancement of science in the development and demonstration of capturing, transporting, and sequestering carbon dioxide.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 62% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 55% for direct work, and 45% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 18
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 1
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 23.7%; rating input score 24
  • Program expense ratio: 13.4%; rating input score 13
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • 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: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -77.3%; rating input score 1; 1st 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: 72.6%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -120.6% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 23.7% of revenue deployed · 13.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $202K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $504K · 11 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2009 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 24/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.