International Sustainable Energy Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 872509491
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2021
- Location
- Austin, TX, USA
- Phone
- (512) 551-9707
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Environmental Quality, Protection, and Beautification N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $30,080,227
- Expenses
- $30,618,687
- Assets
- $48,154,884
- Liabilities
- $12,288,359
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Chris Munson (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Chris Munson (President): $79,750 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our mission is to promote an environmentally sustainable world by supporting climate action and the preservation of the environment with a focus in the Global South.
What it reported doing in 2024
Grants were provided and expenses were incurred for Green Transportation Programs to support projects with a primary focus on the electification of transportation vehicles (i.e., public transportation, freight, trucks, cars, mopeds, three wheels, delivery vans, etc) in India.Grants were provided and expenses were incurred for Sustainable Food & Agriculture Initiatives to support projects that focus on the sustainability (current or future) of a specific food industry (ie Dairy) and/or the process of growing food.Grants were provided and expenses were incurred for Greening Industry & Manufacturing to support projects that focus on introducing sustainable energy practices to industry and manufacturing sectors such as steel and cement.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 91% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 96
- Transparency & Controls: 77
- Accountability: 78
- Sustainability: 44
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 99.2%; rating input score 99
- Program expense ratio: 97.4%; rating input score 97
- Fundraising efficiency: $66.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Pass
- Conducts field audits: Limited
- May suspend future funding: Limited
- Requires financial reports: Pass
- Conducts site visits: Limited
- Requires grant agreements: Limited
- May require repayment: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: -1.8%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.57; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.3%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 79.2% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 31.1% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 14 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 99.2% of revenue deployed · 97.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $29.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $80K · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 33 of 35 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 29 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 28 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.