Institute for Industrial Productivity

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272664900
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2026846946
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Vocational, Technical Schools

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,173
Expenses
$1,601,277
Assets
$22,535
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JIGAR SHAH (PRESIDENT/EXECUTIVE DIRECT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JIGAR SHAH (PRESIDENT/EXECUTIVE DIRECT): $290,442 total reported compensation
  • BRUCE HEDMAN (TECHNICAL DIRECTOR): $179,976 total reported compensation
  • EDMUND HEDMAN (OPERATIONS DIRECTOR): $121,476 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The institute for industrial productivity focuses on design, implementation, and enforcement of policies to promote energy efficiency, cogeneration, and reduced process emissions in the industrial sector.

What it reported doing in 2016

India: decrease carbon intensity of the cement industry through various state and national level initiatives for the use of alternate fuels and raw materials; decrease carbon intensity of the energy intensive sectors by supporting the indian government and industry through a best practices knowledge exchange platform; promote south-south exchange to improve resource efficiency in the sub-continent.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 83.8%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -15,640.5%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.01; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 40.5%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -27.1% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -27.5% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.2% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 83.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $290K · 13 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.