Railroad Research Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522344655
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2026392118
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Camps

Reported finances

Revenue
$887,191
Expenses
$897,183
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • IAN JEFFERIES (PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • IAN JEFFERIES (PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR): $2,597,480 total reported compensation
  • KATHRYN D KIRMAYER (VP & GENERAL COUNSEL): $761,688 total reported compensation
  • PAUL HEDRICK (VP, TREASURER & DIRECTOR): $614,201 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The railroad research foundation is a public charity formed to conduct railroad related research.

What it reported doing in 2023

Rcrms license activities: governed by licensing agreements between the foundation and the seven (7) class i and four(4) shortline railroads, the rcrms freight railroad risk assessment tool is recognized as a key enabling technology for the railroad industry to assist in accomplishing the risk evaluation objectives for compliance to the rail safety improvement act of 2008. The foundation provides application and user hosting, technical support capabilities and data integration.

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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 38
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.9%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 94.9%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 16.7%; rating input score 17; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.1%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 60%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -20.3% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -26.4% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.9% of revenue deployed · 94.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $851K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2.6M · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $846K reported
  • Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 17/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.