Center for Resource Solutions

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943265560
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, US
Phone
4155612100
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,670,491
Expenses
$6,404,814
Assets
$4,684,333
Liabilities
$1,483,569

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Jennifer Martin (Executive Dir.): $281,309 total reported compensation
  • Fred Wood (Program Director): $219,950 total reported compensation
  • Margaret Kellen (Program Director): $208,958 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

CRS is a nonprofit working internationally to mitigate climate change and building policies and consumer protection mechanisms in renewable energy, greenhouse gas reductions, and energy efficiency.

What it reported doing in 2024

Policy and Market Development include advocacy to support effective policies and regulations that result in real impact for the climate and communities; creating consensus-based guidance involving stakeholders from civil society, government, and the private sector that results in real-time advancements in using clean energy to reduce climate impacts; and best-in-class expert assistance for organizations seeking to lead by example in providing and using renewable energy and achieving greenhouse gas reductions.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 89% 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 most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 54
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 84%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12.9%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.73; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.7%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 95% of revenue deployed · 84% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $5.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $281K · 19 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $161K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.