California Environmental Technology Education Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680458382
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Carmichael, CA, USA
Phone
9163669532
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$37,548
Expenses
$36,424
Assets
$52,401
Liabilities
$2,536

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Marc Epstein (Board Member Director): $16,946 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 provide professional development, materials, and instruction related to environmental technology for K-12

What it reported doing in 2025

Revenue

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Member-benefit provider. The nonprofit used 75% of its reported program spending for member benefits.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.3%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 49.7%; rating input score 50
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.44; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 46.5%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -17.1% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 46.9% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.4% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.3% of revenue deployed · 49.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $17K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.