Star Communities Co Us Green Building Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461025703
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
8007951747
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Society Benefit N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$353,004
Expenses
$40,405
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HILARI VARNADORE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • HILARI VARNADORE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $84,150 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Star communities is a dc-based nonprofit orgranization that works to evaluate, improve and certify sustainable communities. We help cities and counties achieve a healthy environment, a strong economy and well being for their residents.star communities leads communities to chart a clear path toward a sustainable future.

What it reported doing in 2017

The star community rating system is the nation's first comprehensive framework and certification program for evaluating local sustainability, encompassing economic, environmental and social performance measures. Local leaders use the rating system's evaluation measures to assess their current level of sustainability, set targets for moving ahead, and measure progress along the way. Tehcnical experts, sustainability leaders and local government officials developed star to provide a transparent and data-driven mechanism to improve local communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and 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: 22
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 6.4%; rating input score 6
  • Program expense ratio: 56.2%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 88.6%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 208.3%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -44.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -37% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -71.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 6.4% of revenue deployed · 56.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $23K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $84K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2014 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 6/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.