Ifma Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 760313751
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Houston, TX, USA
- Phone
- 7136234362
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $588,865
- Expenses
- $486,480
- Assets
- $1,471,863
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MICHAEL GEARY (IFMA PRESIDENT)
- RACHEL BIUNDO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- RACHEL BIUNDO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $98,824 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The ifma foundation works for the public good in support of facility management higher education, students studying facility management and related fields, research critical to the profession, and increasing awareness of facility management and making fm a career of choice.
What it reported doing in 2024
Ifma foundation granted scholarships to 32 students studying to enter the fm profession in 2024-25. In addition to a monetary award to help offset the costs of earning their fm-related degree, scholarship recipients were also awarded travel and related expenses to participate in the foundation's student experience at ifma's world workplace annual conference and exposition. The world workplace student experience provides students with opportunities to learn about best practices in the profession and the newest technologies, and also offers a professional forum in which they can build their fm network.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 57% for direct work, and 43% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 62
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 69
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 68.2%; rating input score 68
- Program expense ratio: 79.6%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: $17.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Fail
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 50%; rating input score 50; 29th 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: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 17.4%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.03; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 20.3%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 68.2% of revenue deployed · 79.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $387K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $99K · 14 people listed
- Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 54/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.