Guild of Future Architects Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
834379679
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2022
Location
West Th Street, NY, USA
Phone
3105646961
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,214,052
Expenses
$1,599,228
Assets
$730,984
Liabilities
$1,041,636

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JEN WILSON (DIRECTOR OF PARTNERSHIPS): $166,398 total reported compensation
  • MARK BEAM (DIRECTOR): $40,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The guild of future architects is a home, refuge and resource for people collaboratively shaping a more just, prosperous and beautiful tomorrow. Future architects are people who work through intersectional collaborations to imagine and prototype shared futures. Shared futures are potential realities born from the bold vision and dedicated stewardship of future architects seeking long-view and transformational impact leading to shared prosperity.

What it reported doing in 2022

Shared futures: a shared future is like a "start-up," but instead of focusing on businesses for the marketplace, it focuses on collaborations for the commons. The goal is to imagine and prototype bold ideas for our collective future. Once the shared futures are envisioned, the guild of future architects helps to incubate them through a collaborative prototyping process by connecting them to resources, providing coaching and advisory services, and amplifying their efforts through communications and media platforms.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 56% for direct work, and 44% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 65
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 60%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -31.7%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.42; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.9%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 34.2% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19.4% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.6% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79% of revenue deployed · 60% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $959K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $166K · 9 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2019 to 2022
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.