Ecological Rights Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680400522
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Redway, CA, USA
Phone
7072236332
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$251,438
Expenses
$104,574
Assets
$318,311
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RACHEL ROSNER (President)
  • CHRIS ARLETT (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • LINDA SHERBY (Executive Dir.): $15,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of this organization shall be to educate the general public about environmental practices which cause harm to human health, the environment and other natural resources; and to seek redress of these harms through litigation or alternative dispute resolution.

What it reported doing in 2024

ERF 2024 STATEMENT OF PROGRAM SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: In 2024 Ecological Rights Foundation continued its work investigating and cleaning up sources of pollution to Californias waterways and habitat degradation in the States aquatic environments. This work includes water and sediment quality monitoring, pursuing cleanups of polluted industrial sites; protecting endangered species, and representing conservationist stakeholders interests in administrative proceedings and citizen enforcement actions under state and federal environmental statues. ERFs accomplishments this past year included settlements and compliance monitoring of agreements under the Federal Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Endangered Species Act, resulting in increased protection for Californias communities, waterbodies, and vulnerable wildlife species. Ecological Rights Foundations Environmental Health, Awareness and Protection Campaign continued its successful work to reduce consumer exposures to toxic chemicals. ERF continued to focus on protecting consumers from reproductive harm caused by styrene, carbon monoxide and other chemical exposures, and the abatement of human health and ecological risks from dioxin and other highly toxic chemicals used to treat lumber products and utility poles. ERFs PERL Network project continued its work facilitating marine and climate research in the Pacific Region and supporting community-based natural resource protection and conservation to increase climate resilience. Ecological Rights Foundation updated and maintained its public information websites and social media outlets.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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 most voting board members are independent. 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: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 31.6%; rating input score 32
  • Program expense ratio: 77.3%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 58.4%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.04; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.3%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.1% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.7% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 31.6% of revenue deployed · 77.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $81K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $15K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 32/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.