Outercurve Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
270833462
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2013, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Wakefield, MA, USA
Phone
7812460500
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Physical & Earth Sciences,

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$41,640
Expenses
$16,741
Assets
$29,523
Liabilities
$1,115

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jim Jagielski (President)

People named in this filing

  • Samir Ramji (Director)
  • Tony Hey (Treasurer)
  • Jim Jagielski (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the OuterCurve Foundation is to enable the exchange of code and understanding among software companies and open source communities.

What it reported doing in 2015

To achieve its mission to enable the exchange of code and understanding among software companies and open source communities, the foundation created a project acceptance and management process that enables it to accept and support contributed open source projects - six projects have been accepted to date.The foundation groups related projects using a gallery metaphor and established two galleries in its first year, the ASP.NET Open Source Gallery and the Systems Infrastructure and Integration Gallery. The galleries house open source projects, ranging from libraries to speed ASP.NET development to package management systems to projects that analyze network protocol traffic in heterogeneous environments.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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: 82
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 59.8%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.76; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -109.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -84.1% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.