Us Green Building Council Texas Gulf Coast Chapter

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
061693724
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2012, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
7133752739
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Quality, Protection, and Beautification N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$74,800
Expenses
$91,773
Assets
$19,195
Liabilities
$90

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • SERFIO GRADO (Chairman)
  • DAVID MCLEAN (VICE CHAIR)
  • MARIA PEREZ (Secretary)

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

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization's mission is to promote the consturction of eco-friendly, energy-efficent homes, scholls, buildings, and neighborhoods. Educations programs are conducted that explani green alternatives, in houseing, schools and businesses.

What it reported doing in 2015

Educational programs that are designed to meet the training needs of the construction and design industry. The leed workshops and webinars are also created to build awareness of sustainable construction trends and topics.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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 a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.9%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 56.2%; rating input score 56

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -22.7%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.21; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -46% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -27.6% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -47% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.9% of revenue deployed · 56.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $52K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2013 to 2015
  • 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.

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

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.