Independent Petroleum Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
730296927
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2028574722
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,882,957
Expenses
$4,554,945
Assets
$5,000,923
Liabilities
$833,101

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

54 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • C JEFFREY ESHELMAN II (PRESIDENT &)

Highest reported compensation

  • C JEFFREY ESHELMAN II (PRESIDENT &): $455,763 total reported compensation
  • DANIEL NAATZ (COO, SECRETA): $425,596 total reported compensation
  • IDA POST (CFO): $367,834 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Ipaa is a national trade association, headquartered in Washington, d.c., that represents thousands of independent oil and natural gas producers and service companies across the united states. It serves as an informed voice for the exploration and production segment of the industry and advocates its members' views before the united states congress, the white house, and federal agencies. Ipaa provides economic and statistical information about the u.s. Exploration and production industry. Ipaa develops networking and business development opportunities for its members.

What it reported doing in 2024

Communications/energy in depth: disseminated information, conducted press releases and prepared newsletters regarding information pertaining to ipaa as a whole in addition to individual programs. The largest program, energy in depth, is a research, education and public outreach campaign focused on getting the facts out about the promise and potential of responsibly developing america's onshore energy resource base- especially abundant sources of oil and natural gas from shale.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.7%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.1; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 48.7%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.4% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 46 of 46 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $456K · 54 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $1.1M reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.