Environmental Fund For Texas Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 742627643
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Austin, TX, USA
- Phone
- 5124725518
- Rating
- 87
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $647,688
- Expenses
- $853,982
- Assets
- $1,263,879
- Liabilities
- $726,057
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Elijah Kelley (President)
- Pam Lim (Vice President)
- Matthew Glazer (Interim Executive Director)
People named in this filing
- Elijah Kelley (President)
- Pam Lim (Vice President)
- Meg Haenn (Treasurer)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To conserve natural resources and build a healthy and sustainable environment by partnering with our member organizations, employers, and the community.
What it reported doing in 2024
The organization's main activity is campaign management. Annual campaigns are conducted by the organization to raise public support for distribution to members. Funds are raised during a campaign period, which is the time between the start of the planning, promotion, and initiation of appeals for contributions and pledges under a particular annual campaign and the formal termination date of the campaign. Most annual campaigns of the organization are conducted in the fall of each year. The organization distributes campaign funds using a distribution year, which is the 12-month period for which funds from a particular campaign are earmarked to be distributed to participating agencies. Distributions are made quarterly. The organization earns administrative fees for conducting campaigns, monitoring and distributing funds to participant agencies, and other donor-designated organizations. The organization manages the City of Austin Combined Charities Campaign ("COACCC"), the Capital Area SECC Campaign, and the Waco SECC Campaign. Pledges and contributions received from these campaigns are held in separate bank accounts and allocated to each participating member agency in the ratio that each agency was designated from the donor. The member's share of undesignated pledges is calculated based upon a ratio derived from the percent of designated funds received. Funds are distributed on a bi-monthly basis, and administrative charges are deducted on the first distribution of the year.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, 2% for affiliated organizations, and 33% for member benefits.
The verdict
STRONG - 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: 87
- Transparency & Controls: 93
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 30
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 85.1%; rating input score 85
- Fundraising efficiency: $7.44 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- 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: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -31.9%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.48; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.57; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 85.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
- Consistency: 27 of 29 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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 28/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Fund balance restriction sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.