Climate Power Education Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
922286208
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2029643737
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,510,629
Expenses
$19,389,192
Assets
$537,391
Liabilities
$92,730

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATTHEW COMPTON (PRESIDENT)
  • LORI LODES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • HEATHER HARGREAVES (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ANTONIETA CADIZ (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • CLAIRE MOSER (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • NOREEN NIELSEN (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LORI LODES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $335,774 total reported compensation
  • NZINGA WEST (DIRECTOR): $283,859 total reported compensation
  • HEATHER HARGREAVES (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $274,986 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Climate power education fund leverages impactful research, media outreach, and creative digital content to talk about the urgency of climate action. We elevate the climate change threat, sparking national conversations on solutions.

What it reported doing in 2024

Educated the public and the media on the benefits of climate action. Compiled data on the expansion of america's clean energy economy and supported public education campaigns, nationally and in key states, to drive awareness of this example of climate progress. Tracked industry activity from the oil and gas companies and drove public awareness on their efforts to dismantle climate progress and undermine the popularity of clean energy.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 95
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 23
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 96.8%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: $27.28 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -68.4%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.03; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.2%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 142.7% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -176.5% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $18.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $336K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $103K reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.