Applied Economics Clinic Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
820991201
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
7818193232
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Societal Benefit

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,826,294
Expenses
$1,801,775
Assets
$407,111
Liabilities
$310,824

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELIZABETH STANTON (PRESIDENT/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELIZABETH STANTON (PRESIDENT/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $219,794 total reported compensation
  • TYLER COMINGS (PRINCIPAL ECONOMIST): $203,393 total reported compensation
  • BRYNDIS WOODS (PRINCIPAL ANALYST): $168,753 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of applied economics clinic is to provide low cost and pro bono expert services to public interest groups on the topics of energy, environment, consumer protection, and equity; train the next generation of expert technical witnesses and analysts by providing applied, on-the-job learning experiences to graduate students in related fields; and work proactively to support and promote diversity in the fields of economics, engineering, math, and sciences.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 66
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.5%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 74.5%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 1.3%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.76; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 47.8%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.7% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.5% of revenue deployed · 74.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $220K · 9 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $105K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.