Alliance for Environmental Sustainability

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383629786
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Phone
2317409849
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Energy Resources Conservation and Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$315,701
Expenses
$411,785
Assets
$237,046
Liabilities
$31,538

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Brendan Molony (PRESIDENT)
  • Debbie Coleman (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • Jose Reyna (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • Madeline Walker Miller (AT LARGE)
  • Julie Roth (AT LARGE)
  • Brendan Molony (PRESIDENT)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Empowering people to make healthier and more sustainable choices in the renovation and construction of the places we live

What it reported doing in 2024

The GreenHome Institute primary service is to assist homeowners, developers, architects, designers, and consumers qualify their new or renovation single or multifamily residential construction projects for third party Green Building Certification. This certification may be achieved through a variety of sustainable residential development programs including LEED for Homes, Enterprise Green Communities, National Green Building Standard, GreenStar Homes Certification, and the DOE Home Energy Score. We assist people select the certification program that best suits them and help manage their project through the construction process towards certification. The goal is to create living spaces that are healthier, more durable that conserve energy and water, reduce overall living expenses, reduce reliance on the power grid, and minimize the impact on our environment. These housing units may also qualify for low-income tax credits and other tax credits and rebates.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.2%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 53.8%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.47 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -30.4%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.58; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.2% of revenue deployed · 53.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $222K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.