The National Council for Eurasian and East European Research

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521121063
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2025729095
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$240,208
Expenses
$163,728
Assets
$226,902
Liabilities
$15,051

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

People named in this filing

  • BRUCE GRANT (CHAIR)
  • ELIZABETH WOOD (VICE CHAIR)
  • THEODORE GERBER (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Nceeer was created in 1978 to develop and sustain long-term, high quality programs for post-doctoral research on the social, political, economic, environmental, and historical development of eurasia and central and eastern europe. From broad, cross-cultural analyses to more focused studies of particular problems, nceeer supports research projects that facilitate a mutually beneficial exchange of information between scholars and policy-makers and contribute to a better understanding of current developments and future prospects in the post-communist countries of europe and eurasia.

What it reported doing in 2024

The major program of the council is to develop and sustain a long-term, substantial and high quality program of fundamental research dealing with major policy issues and questions of eastern europe, the ussr and its successor states' social, political, economic, and historical development by funding contracts to us scholars for research in these areas. Additionally, the council may encourage provisions for research materials, travel for research purposes, training for special skills, and such other activities with training value as it may judge desirable, facilitate contact and cooperation among individual scholars, and between them and specialists in government and private enterprise.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 64% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.4%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 87.2%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $77.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 31.8%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.39; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.8% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -16.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -15.4% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.4% of revenue deployed · 87.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $143K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.