One Economy Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522220052
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2011
Forms available
Form 990 2011
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2023930051
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Financial Counseling

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$23,793,055
Expenses
$25,312,194
Assets
$5,504,836
Liabilities
$2,356,043

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission and purpose of oec is to maximize the potential of technology to help low-income people build assets and raise their standard of living. These objectives are accomplished by providing web-based products and services focusing on finances, education, employment, healthcare, and home ownership through its web properties. Oec creates initiatives and partnerships to build digital communities in select geographic areas to increase the aptitude of participating individuals with the internet culture.

What it reported doing in 2011

Our national programs and strategic initiatives division provides to youth from diverse backgrounds certified technology and leadership skills training to prepare youth for the 21st century workplace through our digital connectors program. During 2011, we delivered 150 digital connector programs that provided training to over 90,000 people. We also connect low-income people to vital resources including free online tax services and information on health, jobs, money, schools and housing. During 2011, we provided online tax services to over 50,000 filers. As part of our mission, we provide events and produce public service announcements to promote the utilization of broadband by low-income people to assist with solving problems in their communities. Our efforts to promote the utilization of broadband has reached over 16.5 million people during 2011.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 70% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 7th 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.7%; rating input score 99; 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; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6.4%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.22; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.43; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.9%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 51.8% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -45% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $23.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $322K · 21 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2010 to 2011
  • Money network: 46 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 46 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.

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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.