Environmental Law Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943164862
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
5102084555
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Interest Law

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$235,747
Expenses
$245,469
Assets
$65,133
Liabilities
$7,184

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Nathaniel Kane (Executive Director)
  • Alex Leumer (Board President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Nathaniel Kane (Executive Director): $52,250 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Environmental Law Foundation's (ELF) mission is to protect the environment, communities, and consumers against harmful toxics and other environmental harms. Our work consistently improves environmental quality for those most at risk by providing access to information, strategies and enforcement of environmental, toxics, and community right-to-know laws.

What it reported doing in 2024

In order to achieve our mission, ELF brings legal cases and advocates on behalf of the public interest. In 2024, among other things, we advocated for flow requirements in the Scott River in Northern California. We also litigated cases protecting groundwater resources in the San Joaquin Valley, litigated and advocated for groundwater quality in the Central Coast and Central Valley, and advocated for regulation of dairy CAFOs consistent with state law.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 65
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.1%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.3%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.9% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $245K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $52K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 40 of 40 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.