American Center for Life Cycle Assessment Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 471733460
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Bethesda, MD, USA
- Phone
- 2026600337
- Rating
- 43
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Alliance/Advocacy Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $936,969
- Expenses
- $875,146
- Assets
- $328,149
- Liabilities
- $11,528
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
32 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- Deborah Steckel (Executive Dir.): $146,377 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To advance the science and application of life cycle assessment (LCA) to build capacity, drive development and connect the LCA community to achieve environmental sustainability.
What it reported doing in 2024
LCA Annual Meeting. ACLCA hosts an annual meeting each year bringing together professionals from government, non-profits, academia and industry to learn about the latest research and work in life cycle assessment (LCA). Students also attend the meeting and there are activities and education opportunities specifically developed for their interests. The meeting includes pre-conference workshops, sessions and presentations of work by experts in the field. The meeting brings together all the stakeholders in the LCA community and focuses on the application of this work.ACLCA Membership provides organizations, individuals and students with a community to share their work, build capacity, access educational resources and stay up to date on the latest in LCA. ACLCA members participate on ACLCAs Committees: Education, Policy, Product Category Rule, Certification, Outreach, and Industry. Certifications from ACLCA allows those in the LCA field to demonstrate a level of expertise in LCA practice and a commitment to the ACLCA Code of Ethics. ACLCA created the LCACP, CLE and CLAR certifications and reviews and updates the exams and requirements on a yearly basis through its Certification Committee.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 79% 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
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 74
- Accountability: 69
- Sustainability: 40
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.6%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 16.7%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 33 of 32 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $146K · 32 people listed
- Consistency: 12 of 14 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.