Us Green Building Council - Utah Chapter
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 352269912
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2012–2015
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2007
- Location
- Salt Lake City, UT, USA
- Phone
- 8012091963
- Rating
- 50
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Adult, Continuing Education
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $23,642
- Expenses
- $38,874
- Assets
- $2,939
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
People named in this filing
- CLIO RAYNER (Secretary)
- WHITNEY WARD (PAST CHAIRMAN)
- AMIR HASKIC (CHAIRMAN ELECT)
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 organizations' primary purpose is to raise awareness of green building principles and practices among the green building community and general public. In addition, to provide a forum for communication, networking and recognition through regularly scheduled chapter programs and events. As a grassroots arm of the national us green building council, the Utah chapter strives to promote membership in the usgbc and adoption of the usgbc's leadership in energy and environmental design (leed) rating systems.
What it reported doing in 2015
Monthly learning seminars with panelists discussion of various topics such as the selecting of building systems, integrating energy modeling and effective commissioning. Class size varies depending on location between 20-100 participants.
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
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 15
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 7
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 17.4%; rating input score 17
- Program expense ratio: 10.6%; rating input score 11
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -64.4%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.08; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 55.6%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 31.1% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -36% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -60.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 17.4% of revenue deployed · 10.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2012 to 2015
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 17/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 11/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.