Greater Cincinnati Energy Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263977160
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
Phone
5134982885
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Energy Resources Conservation and Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$377,430
Expenses
$911,506
Assets
$163,162
Liabilities
$9,256

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JERRY SCHMITS (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JERRY SCHMITS (CEO): $167,451 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To facilitate investment in energy efficiency and solar for homeowners, non-profit organizations, and commercial building owners through outreach and education, project management, and financing solutions.

What it reported doing in 2020

Greater cincinnati energy alliance performed work primarily related to the development of energy efficiency programs, renewable energy programs and energy financing programs for residential and commercial property owners. Historically, the energy alliance was funded primarily from a grant from the u.s. Department of energy better buildings neighborhood program but increasingly the energy alliance generates funding from other grants, contracts and also from program income related to its energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. During 2020, the energy alliance programs included multiple residential energy assessment programs, management of efficiency incentive programs, initiating solar energy programs, commercial property assessed clean energy (pace) programs and residential energy finance programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 61.9%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: Limited
  • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -141.5%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.4%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.5% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -22.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -17.9% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 61.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $564K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $167K · 8 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2011 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.