Young Real Estate Professionals Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472786647
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2020–2020
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
4438342081
Rating
93
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Leadership Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$29,315
Expenses
$22,500
Assets
$16,929
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Benjamin Schon (Chairman of the Board of Directors, President)

People named in this filing

  • Benjamin Schon (Chairman of the Board of Directors, President)
  • John Rendleman (Director)
  • Emily Eppolito (Director)

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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide professional networking opportunities and support the local community. Refer to Schedule O for additional detail.

What it reported doing in 2020

YREP DC intended to host its 6th annual charity gala benefitting BUILD Metro DC, a 501c3, in April 2020. The previous 5 galas have been tremendously successful events, however, YREP DC, like many organizations, had to cancel its plans for the 2020 gala. Although YREP DC had to cancel the event after selling tickets and raising money from sponsors, many of the sponsors continued to support YREP DC in its goals. Although the gala did not occur, YREP DC was still able to donate $22,500 to BUILD Metro DC. The donation is used to help expands BUILD's critical mission in DC and cover their operating costs and expenses, which is entirely for the benefit of providing students with greater education and career opportunities after high school.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

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: 23.2%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.75; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $32K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.