Ellen Macarthur Foundation USA Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474574639
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2015
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
3105945475
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,149,045
Expenses
$1,266,355
Assets
$86,745
Liabilities
$75,453

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIELLE HOLLY (EXECUTIVE LEAD, NORTH AMERICA): $206,077 total reported compensation
  • DACIA MENG (SR. MANAGER OF POLICY & INSTITUTIONS): $150,271 total reported compensation
  • ALMOG PAZ (SENIOR MANAGER, PARTNERSHIPS): $146,520 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 ellen macarthur foundation USA, inc. (emf USA) was formed to extend the activities of the ellen macarthur foundation (emf) in the united states. Working in collaboration with emf, emf USA will work with united states leaders in business, government (continue in sch o) and academia to promote the development of the circular economy concept in the united states.

What it reported doing in 2024

Circular economy policy: ellen macarthur foundation, USA, inc. Informs and educates policymakers at a sub-national, national and international level to embed circular economy principles in various industrial and waste management policies. As part of this, we conduct research to help understand the most effective policies and their economic, material and environmental outcomes across various stakeholders. We focus on (1) critical minerals, (2) plastics & packaging and (3) fashion & textiles as our three key domains as they are critical influencers of overall activity in canada and the united states.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.9%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 78%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.88 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.2%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.07; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.87; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 60.2%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.9% of revenue deployed · 78% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $987K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $206K · 11 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.