Urban Economics Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821155069
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
7137433799
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Societal Benefit

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$229,180
Expenses
$210,014
Assets
$149,830
Liabilities
$1,575

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HENRY OVERMAN (PRESIDENT)
  • MATTHEW TURNER (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • JESSIE HANDBURY (VICE-PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • HENRY OVERMAN (PRESIDENT)
  • MATTHEW TURNER (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • JESSIE HANDBURY (VICE-PRESIDENT)

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

The urban economics association seeks to promote participation and excellence in academic research in urban and regional economics.

What it reported doing in 2024

Annual conferences in toronto and milan discussing the economics of cities, housing, real estate, local public good provision, and the distribution of economic activity in space. The organization also has a summer school program in urban economics in geneva offering intensive training to interested phd students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 46
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.4%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 98.7%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 8.4%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.71; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 16.9% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.4% of revenue deployed · 98.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $207K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.