Identity Ecosystem Steering Group Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464120769
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Manassas, VA, USA
Phone
5713323914
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$307,284
Expenses
$354,464
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK DIFRAIA (PRESIDENT)
  • KAY CHOPARD COHEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • HANS VARGAS (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JENN BEHRENS (DIRECTOR)
  • SAL D'AGOSTINO (DIRECTOR)
  • MARY ELLEN CONDON (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the idesg shall be to develop and administer the process for policy and technical standards development for the identity ecosystem framework. The idesg shall bring together all of the interested stakeholders, both in private and public sectors, to confirm that the identity ecosystem framework provides a minimum baseline of privacy, security, interoperability, and ease-of-use through standards and policies, without creating unnecessary barriers to entry.

What it reported doing in 2018

During 2018, IDESG continued to bring together identity policy influencers in the public and private sector, in industry and in academia to shape the future of online identity by developing Identity Ecosystem Framework (IDEF), a protective array of standards, best practices and agreements.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 83% 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

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: 25
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30%; rating input score 30
  • Program expense ratio: 26%; rating input score 26
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -15.4%; rating input score 16; 16th 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: 0%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -70.8% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -52.8% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -82.2% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30% of revenue deployed · 26% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 692 of 692 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $92K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $133K reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2015 to 2018
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 30/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.