Ice Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
274975493
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Mc Lean, VA, USA
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$194,078
Expenses
$868,022
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES BARCHIESI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES BARCHIESI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $30,181 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organizations mission is to enhance public safety through education, outreach and by supporting the women and me of us immigration and customs enforcement

What it reported doing in 2018

The ice foundation educates the public on the dangers of crime related to our nations borders, and the role of us immigration and customs enforcement (the agency) in enforcing customs and immigration laws. The ice foundation strives to bring awareness to a variety of domestic and international initiatives undertaken by the agency to combat criminal activity arising from the illegal movement of people and goods into, within and out of the united states. The organization supports training and outreach programs to help the agency build and maintain these important working relationships with us federal, state, local, tribal and international law enforcement partners, as well as non-government and private sector organizations. These connections are central to protecting our countrys critical infrastructure industries against attack, sabotage and exploitation, enforcing our intellectual property rights, as well as assisting ice in identifying and removing national

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 61% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 5
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 88.9%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.4%; rating input score 97; 54th 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: 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -347.3%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.5%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 38.3% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 88.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $772K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $30K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2012 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.