The Us Russia Investment Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133837559
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Edgewater, MD, USA
Phone
4102248645
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$-1,618,318
Expenses
$9,628,845
Assets
$158,550,005
Liabilities
$11,891,992

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ALAN GRIFFIN (CFO/ASST. TREAS./SECRETARY): $293,496 total reported compensation
  • ANNA DANALINA (ASST. TREASURER/SECRETARY): $107,564 total reported compensation
  • LORI JONES (ASST. TREASURER/SECRETARY): $94,956 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the u.s. Russia investment fund, as provided by the framework of the seed act, is to promote the development of the russian private sector and joint ventures between the united states and russian participants and to help institute policies and practices (continued) conducive to private sector development in russia.

What it reported doing in 2013

Before the fund filed its certificate of dissolution the fund engaged in a private investment program in russia which provided equity investments, loans and technical assistance grants to russian enterprises, western firms and russian-western joint ventures operating in russia. During the current reporting period, the fund provided grants to cfe, inc. The purpose of the grants is to provide support for entrepreneurial management teams and the promotion of entrepreneurship in russia.the fund also provided grants to the u.s. Russia foundation for (continued) economic advancement and rule of law ("usrf") in accordance with its wind-up and liquidation plan for distribution of the fund's proceeds of sales of portfolio investments, and the endowment of usrf.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 98% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 96%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -695%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 16.47; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.2%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -44.4% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11.4% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $9.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $293K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $190K reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2009 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.