University Consortium for Geographic Info Science

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521937648
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chesapeake, VA, USA
Phone
7574738701
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Physical & Earth Sciences,

Reported finances

Revenue
$202,880
Expenses
$189,601
Assets
$165,940
Liabilities
$84,977

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AMY ROCK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JEFFREY HAMERLINCK (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • KATHLEEN STEWART (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • AMY ROCK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $44,363 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to advance research in the field of geographical information science education, advocate policies for the promotion of the ethical use and access to geographic information and technologies, and build

What it reported doing in 2024

Our mission is to advance research in the field of geographical information science, expand and strengthen geographical information science education, advocate policies for the promotion of the ethical use and access to geographical information and technologies, and build university consortium for geographic information science organizes and presents the annual symposium, and educational conference at which leaders in the field geographic information science congregate to present workshops, papers, and panel discussions on thelatest issues in the field. University consortium for geographic information science organizes and presents the annual symposium, and educational conference at which leaders in the field geographic information science congregate to present workshops, papers, and panel discussions on the latest issues in the field.

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

SUPPORTED - 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: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.2%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 56.8%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Pass
    • 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: 6.5%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.88; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.51; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.4%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.2% of revenue deployed · 56.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $108K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $44K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.