Institutional Stove Solutions

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
455548275
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Cottage Grove, OR, USA
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$162,597
Expenses
$21,579
Assets
$723
Liabilities
$19,001

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES GILROY (PRESIDENT)
  • FRED COLGAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • DR NATHAN KEMALYAN (DIRECTOR)
  • DR JOHN TOMLINSON (DIRECTOR)
  • JAMES GILROY (PRESIDENT)

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

Institutional stoves solutions is a non-profit charitable organization dedicated to relieving human suffering by bringing innovative, sustainable, affordable and appropriate technology to people around the world.

What it reported doing in 2018

Manufacture and sales: we produce and deliver high-quality biomass-fueled cook stoves to remote, needy populations in institutional settings throughout the developing world. Finished stoves are sold to non-government organizations (ngos), government agencies, church organizations, and individuals involved in humanitarian work in africa, asia, the pacific islands and latin america at substantially below cost.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - 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 the required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 45
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 11.5%; rating input score 11
  • Program expense ratio: 86.6%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $182.11 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 86.7%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.03; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 26.28; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -149.8% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -17.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -47.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 11.5% of revenue deployed · 86.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $19K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2012 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 11/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.