Center for Clean Air Policy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521423164
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2024089260
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,061,835
Expenses
$2,953,536
Assets
$1,912,188
Liabilities
$1,691,738

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ALLISON BENDER-CORBETT (EXEUCTIVE DIRECTOR): $165,012 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 support every step of climate action, from ambition to implementation.

What it reported doing in 2024

Methane mitigation: ccap continues to co-lead the recycle organics program, supporting countries across the global south to mitigate their methane emissions. Under the ro program, ccap published a comprehensive guide for developing country policymakers outlining the relevant policy and regulatory levers, how to develop implementation plans, and providing real-life examples and case studies. Further ccap continues to manage the metlac community of practice with 10 countries across the latin america region to build capacity on methane mitigation from the waste sector. The ro program also launched a program focused on small island developing states (sids) in the caribbean and pacific to advance policies, develop project pipelines, and share knowledge across the regions in the waste sector.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 93
  • Transparency & Controls: 39
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 89%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $36.46 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -178.2%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.65; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.88; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.6%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 89% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $165K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes foreign activity and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.