Representative of German Industry and Trade

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521532143
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2026594777
Rating
31
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Economic & Trade Policy

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$779,097
Expenses
$901,353
Assets
$378,873
Liabilities
$189,571

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR CHRISTOPH SCHEMIONEK (PRESIDENT, C)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAY MORGAN (SECRETARY): $98,853 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To improve business conditions between the united states and germany

What it reported doing in 2024

Advocacy for german companies in Washington, dc - representative of german industry & trade (rgit) represents the interests of german business, in particular the members of dihk and bdi, before the u.s. Administration, and congress. Rgit is offering business services such as coordination and production of statements, researching information, and monitoring business information about the united states. Rgit regularly organizes events to foster the transatlantic exchange of information and to improve bilateral trade and investment relations. These events include 1) events highlighting diverse trade and investment issues with experts in transatlantic tade and economic policy, 2) briefings for special guests 3) round table discussions as part of the german- american relations with political and industry visitors from germany 4) events explain the situation of german companies in the united states, occasionally in cooperation with the german-american chamber of commerce

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

REVIEW - Most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 50
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 14th 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: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -15.7%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.42; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.5; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -8.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $99K · 6 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $152K reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.