California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942210145
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4155127890
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,868,929
Expenses
$2,720,501
Assets
$2,970,422
Liabilities
$1,224,939

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

Leadership & pay

41 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Bryan T Carmichael (President & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Bryan T Carmichael (President & CEO): $324,274 total reported compensation
  • Peter Okurowski (Policy Director): $243,188 total reported compensation
  • Yvonne Vukasin (Director of Members, Events and Admin): $220,774 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To create a California where balancing economic growth and environmental protection is not only a vision, but also a reality.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Water, Chemistry, and Waste Project focuses on statewide regulatory and legislative issues dealing with water, green chemistry, waste management, and hazardous materials. The project works closely with state regulatory agencies, administration officials and the legislature to promote accountability, procedural streamlining and proactive, evidence based policies that can be successfully implemented. Project members are represented at a host of state agencies including the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) Forum Board, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the Department of Water Resources (DWR), the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES), and the Ocean Protection Council (OPC), and other state agencies, as well as the California legislature.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.1%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 70.8%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 5.2%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.09; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 37.8%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66.1% of revenue deployed · 70.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 37 of 37 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 7 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $324K · 41 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $697K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.