Climate Impact Lab Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
881551216
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
5105009525
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
General Science

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$523,757
Expenses
$305,046
Assets
$151,864
Liabilities
$25,344

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EMILY GROVER KOPEC (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • MICHAEL GREENSTONE (DIRECTOR)
  • TREVOR HOUSER (DIRECTOR)
  • ROBERT KOPP (DIRECTOR)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The climate impact lab is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization with a mission to measure and communicate the impacts of climate change on people to empower effective decision making.

What it reported doing in 2024

Program service accomplishments include advancing research, data, and communications on how the projected changes in climate will translate into impacts on human welfare and economic damages, including the following: 1. Estimating wildfire-related damages from climate change2. Building and maintaining open access software packages for other researchers to study climate impacts3. Estimating the social cost of greenhouse gases for use in state-level regulations aimed at mitigating pollution 4. Development of climate temperature metrics to advance communication and understanding with the public

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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.2%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 81.1%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $105.72 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings

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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 41.8%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.5; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -117.8% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -77.8% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 33% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.2% of revenue deployed · 81.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $247K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.