The Ohio Environmental Council

What it reported doing in 2024

We deepened our justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion efforts by embedding equity principles across our advocacy, field engagement, and public-facing work. We engaged with communities most affected by environmental harm, ensuring that lived experience and local knowledge inform policy priorities and solutions.across all policy areas, oec applied an equity lens to development and coalition-building. Land-focused work emphasized equitable access to and protection of public lands, with particular attention to communities facing disproportionate environmental burdens from extraction and development. Water advocacy prioritized safe, affordable drinking water and the protection of waterways in communities historically exposed to pollution and underinvestment. Energy equity efforts focused on clean energy access, affordability, and accountability, elevating concerns about utility practices, household energy costs, and the fair distribution of benefits from Ohio's energy transition. Through partnerships, oec supported inclusive engagement strategies that expanded participation and representation in environmental decision-making.inside our organization, we made progress as well. This includes rolling out shared definitions for justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion, and the creation of a "place-space" slack channel so staff members can acknowledge public land, share information about the land, and highlight the native plants and animals that inhabit our state. Our justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion committee co-chairs met with each program team to learn more about the impacts of their work through the justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion lens, with the information collected being catalogued for use in a forthcoming report. We launched our "common connections" program which pairs staff members up with one another for the purposes of getting to know one another better interpersonally to ensure our culture continues to be welcoming and inclusive. Finally, we have been exploring what it means to expand our definitions of inclusivity to be more accountable to internal and external stakeholders who may have specific accessibility needs. In particular, we are working on ways to encourage our staff to think critically about accessibility and account for it in our work products.

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 70.4%; rating input score 70
• Program expense ratio: 77.6%; rating input score 78
• Fundraising efficiency: $16.64 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 25th 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: Limited
• Grant itemization coverage: 99.1%; rating input score 99; 37th percentile among comparable filings
• Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
• Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

• Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Pass
  • Document-retention policy: Pass
  • CEO compensation review process: Fail
  • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
  • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
  • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
  • Audit committee oversight: Pass
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

• Operating margin: 11.1%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.24; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 6.5%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings