Cambridge Energy Alliance Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
260663000
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Cambridge, MA, USA
Phone
6174910488
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Energy Resources Conservation and Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$294,376
Expenses
$312,055
Assets
$62,752
Liabilities
$62,752

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT PRATT (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JOSHUA HASSOL (TREASURER)
  • THOMAS VAUTIN (DIRECTOR)
  • PAUL ALLISON (CLERK (THROUGH 7/15/13))

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 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The primary purpose of cambridge energy alliance, inc. (cea) is to advance the environmental, health and economic welfare of the residents of the city of cambridge, ma by promoting the broad use of energy efficiency measures and renewable energy by such residents and companies and organizations.

What it reported doing in 2013

Measurement of energy conservation: cea monitored the results of its programs and measured energy saved along with other environmental benefits resulting from its activities. It has maintained a database of information to demonstrate the effectiveness of particular energy saving measures and the overall program.

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

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: 17
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 20.4%; rating input score 20
  • Program expense ratio: 19.3%; rating input score 19
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.2; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -37.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 20.4% of revenue deployed · 19.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $60K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2013
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 20/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.