Environmental League of Massachusetts Inc

Overview

Mission

The organization's mission is to advocate for policy that meets the scale and urgency of our environmental challenges. As a Massachusetts-based organization that engages in advocacy across a full spectrum of climate, environmental, and clean energy issues, elm plays a crucial role in coordinating and elevating the environmental community to push for policy change and regulatory oversight.

What it reported doing in 2024

The environmental league of Massachusetts (elm) advocates for policy that meets the scale and urgency of our environmental challenges. Elm engages in advocacy across a full spectrum of climate, environmental, and clean energy issues and plays a crucial role in coordinating and elevating the environmental community to push for policy change and regulatory oversight. Our current policy priorities represent the key opportunities to decarbonize the economy and keep Massachusetts on track for an equitable net zero future by 2050. Our top six priorities currently include catalyzing the clean energy transition, sustainable transportation, greening our buildings, advancing environmental justice, financing for innovation and infrastructure, and reducing waste.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 89% 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.

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042760271
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Headquarters
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
6177422553
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 97
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.8%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 72.2%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th 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: 95.8%; rating input score 96; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.5%; rating input score 95; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.1%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.99; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.4%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.3% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.8% of revenue deployed · 72.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 22 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $233K · 33 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 15 annual filings from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 11 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

Leadership & pay

33 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ELIZABETH HENRY (PRESIDENT): $233,067 total reported compensation
  • ANDREW REED (VICE PRESIDENT OF DEVELOPM): $186,598 total reported compensation
  • CASEY BOWERS (ACTION FUND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $167,852 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: FY2024.