US Overseas Cooperative Development Council Incorporated

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
571199394
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2022613558
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,113,625
Expenses
$2,111,409
Assets
$760,317
Liabilities
$398,384

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Paul Hazen (Executive Director)
  • Werner LuAnn (Deputy Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Paul Hazen (Executive Director): $252,220 total reported compensation
  • Judith Ogilvie Hermanson (Director, ICRG): $206,700 total reported compensation
  • Rebecca Savoie (Senior Researcher): $190,800 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of OCDC is to champion, advocate and promote effective international cooperative development. OCDC promotes cooperative development initiatives in developing countries and emerging democracies by strengthening the ability of both member and non-member cooperative development organizations through education and other coordinated activities.

What it reported doing in 2024

International Cooperative Research Group: The ICRG supports the advancement of cooperatives in developing countries through its independent research and dissemination. This year research projects have included "Covid 19 Impact on Cooperatives in Sub-Saharan Africa." Cooperative Business Resilience Assessment and Planning Tool, women's membership in informal and formal cooperatives in Kenya, the role of cooperatives in locally-led development, and a multi-country research initiative on women's economic empowerment in Sub-Saharan Africa, among others. See Schedule O for continuation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 84.3%; rating input score 84; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.1%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.36; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.52; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 41.7%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $252K · 15 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $170K reported
  • Consistency: 10 of 12 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes foreign activity and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.