The Institute of Forest

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
562278107
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2012
Forms available
Form 990 2012
Location
Cary, NC, USA
Phone
9196787613
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Biomedicine, Bioengineering Research

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$366,085
Expenses
$365,081
Assets
$238,189
Liabilities
$6,658

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the institute of forest biotechnology is to work for societal, ecological, and economic benefits from appropriate uses of biotechnology in forestry worldwide. The institute will serve its mission through development of scientific research, public education, public policy and community building.

What it reported doing in 2012

Forest health program: is a collaborative effort to advance the country's understanding and role of biotechnology to address some of today's most pressing forest health challenges.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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: 92
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.3%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.65; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 64.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -25.3% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $292K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $119K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2011 to 2012
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.