Emerald Cities Collaborative Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
270920269
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2024499780
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Society Benefit N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,062,301
Expenses
$22,890,571
Assets
$19,749,373
Liabilities
$996,470

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Meishka Mitchell (President/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Meishka Mitchell (President/CEO): $235,600 total reported compensation
  • Adetola Shabi (Chief Financial & Admin Officer): $211,012 total reported compensation
  • Daryl Wright (Chief Strategy Officer): $205,523 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The primary purpose of Emerald Cities Collaborative, Inc. is to promote the Greening of Metropolitan areas in ways that improve equal opportunity, shared wealth and democracy.

What it reported doing in 2023

Training/capacity building including board members serving as subject matter experts by traveling to and meeting with localers to share learning and to disseminate knowledge by way of policy papers and webinars.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 66% 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 most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 40
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.5%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $52.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 71.4%; rating input score 71; 0th 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -224.1%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.86; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.3%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 32.8% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 26% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 34.7% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 19 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $20.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $236K · 28 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 26 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2023
  • 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.
  • 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.