The Confectionery Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 271111667
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2015
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2025341440
- Rating
- 43
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Museum, Museum Activities
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $24,900
- Expenses
- $3,192
- Assets
- $198,959
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- JOHN DOWNS (NCA STAFF): $1,697,693 total reported compensation
- ELISE FENNIG (NCA STAFF): $572,419 total reported compensation
- STEVE MCCRODDAN (NCA STAFF): $431,716 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Philanthropy, charitable research and educational purposes, namely, to carry out the research and educational activities of the national confectionery association of the united states, inc. ("nca") related to confectionery products and the confectionery industry.
What it reported doing in 2024
Next generation career education outreach program: seventh year of providing eligible university and technical college students a look into the confectionary industry through small group tours and presentations during the industry annual sweets & snacks expo. Students have a chance to meet with industry professionals at their booths and learn about the workforce, their companies and the industry. Showcases the wide variety of opportunities for students to explore the confectionary industry.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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 - Most voting board members are independent and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 13
- Transparency & Controls: 54
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 81
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 4.1%; rating input score 4
- Program expense ratio: 31.8%; rating input score 32
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 13th 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: No; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 87.2%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 62.33; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6,057.2%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -9.2% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -4.6% per year; rating input score 0; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 4.1% of revenue deployed · 31.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.7M · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 2 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 4/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 32/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.