Environmental Action Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472263805
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2017–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2016, Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Rockville, MD, USA
Phone
2022535560
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Reported finances

Revenue
$196,174
Expenses
$161,040
Assets
$26,290
Liabilities
$6,025

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Richard Hoffman (President)

People named in this filing

  • Richard Hoffman (President)
  • David Reed (Executive Dir.)
  • Michael Ross (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The EAC finds legal and policy solutions for a healthy environment. Our work focuses on encouraging both government enforcement of the law and the private sectors compliance with the law, to ensure clean water.

What it reported doing in 2018

Industrial: EAC watchdogs agricultural and industrial operations throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed as well as in western Pennsylvania. Our Clean Water Act enforcement initiative addresses problematic sources of pollution within each watershed and waterway, and pressures polluters to cleanup their operations in order to protect the regions water resources.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.1%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.9%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.16; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35.1%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 50.5% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -13.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -67% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.1% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $161K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2017 to 2018
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.