Environmental Initiative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
411718834
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
6123343388
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,996,463
Expenses
$4,578,539
Assets
$2,192,473
Liabilities
$449,995

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MIKE HARLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MIKE HARLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $185,672 total reported compensation
  • SACHA SEYMOUR-ANDERSON (EXECUTIVE LEAD): $137,805 total reported compensation
  • WILLIAM LEMIEUX (FINANCE DIRECTOR): $128,426 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Catalyze collaboration across perspectives, power, and systems for social equity and environmental health.

What it reported doing in 2025

Sustainable growth coalition: a business-led partnership with 15 businesses and organizations administered by environmental initiative harnessing member expertise to advance the circular economy, where all energy is renewable, waste is eliminated, and natural, social, and human resources are protected and preserved. Individually, each organization is committed to sustainability, and recognizes that together they can have a larger societal impact on their operations, industries, environment, and community.agricultural programs: environmental initiative partners with agricultural stakeholders to accelerate the development and implementation of farmer-led solutions that benefit the environment, economic viability of farmers, and vitality of rural communities. These partnerships offer innovations to accelerate continuous improvements in our environment, particularly for water quality, soil health, habitat, and climate protection. In 2025, the organization's agricultural projects included: reach farmers faster, a partnership with trust in food, to help conservation implementers better understand the motivations of farmers and to design programs to more effectively lead to practice change; and several partnerships with the forever green initiative of the university of Minnesota, advancing the development and commercialization of perennial crops. Source water protection collaborative - a Minnesota-based statewide initiative, the source water protection collaborative brings together individuals who have expertise in source water, community outreach, engagement, or public health to develop ways to promote land use which protects drinking water sources. One activity of the collaborative has been a creative engagement pilot that has worked with an artist to educate and mobilize community members in little falls, Minnesota. We intend to explore other creative engagement projects in the future, including a project in chatfield, Minnesota in 2026.roots for the future (formerly know as northside safety net) - this green career exploration and environmental justice internship program serves youth from the seven-county twin cities metropolitan area. The program is led by environmental initiative and has been developed in partnership with public, private, and nonprofit partners. The innovative program model places interns at the center of a robust learning environment designed to support consistent, long-term relationships with and between youth participants and program partners, with a goal of educating and empowering a new generation of environmental advocates. Environmental initiative awards - this is our annual recognition program celebrating people and projects working in partnership at the nexus of a healthy environment, a prosperous economy, and an equitable society. We bring together partners from across the environmental community and our organizational work to honor award recipients during an inspiring event of celebration and networking.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.4%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 86.8%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th 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: 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: -14.6%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.48; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.9%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.4% of revenue deployed · 86.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $186K · 24 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.3M reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.