Environmental Construction Collaborative Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264456668
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2014
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Scarborough, ME, USA
Phone
2075106868
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Engineering

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,800
Expenses
$2,534
Assets
$2,720

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Massengill (President)

People named in this filing

  • John Massengill (Treasurer)
  • John Segin (Director)
  • Peter Hatem (Secretary)

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 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Sustainable Building Practices: Assist building owners, architects and contractors with making informed choices for environmentally responsible building practices and products.

What it reported doing in 2014

To provide the experience and product knowledge needed to assist the building owner, architect, consultant and contractor to make informed choices regarding high performance and environmentally responsible products and systems for roofing and building construction.

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • 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: -40.8%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.07; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -40% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -23.8% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2013 to 2014
  • 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.

  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.