Environmental Policy Innovation Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
933208396
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
College Park, MD, USA
Phone
3135704347
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Quality, Protection, and Beautification N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,878,605
Expenses
$8,662,917
Assets
$3,984,489
Liabilities
$392,223

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Timothy Male (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Timothy Male (Executive Director): $179,967 total reported compensation
  • Sarah Barnwell (Chief Business Officer): $170,838 total reported compensation
  • Reed Van Beveren (Deputy Director of Technology): $170,208 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Environmental Policy Innovation Center is a national nonprofit organization that builds policies to deliver spectacular improvements in the speed of environmental progress.

What it reported doing in 2025

Water Infrastructure: Our goal is to ensure all communities have safe reliable affordable and resilient water infrastructure despite financial workforce and environmental challenges. Many communities particularly small and under-resourced ones face issues with aging systems funding gaps and policy barriers that threaten access to clean drinking water effective wastewater treatment and flood protection. Our team addresses these challenges by offering hands-on support expediting the replacement of toxic lead pipes broadening the impact of state revolving fund investments and promoting the adoption of green infrastructure. Leveraging expertise in policy analysis engineering finance data science regulation and community engagement we facilitate the transition from vision to action. Through thorough analysis technical guidance and cooperation with utilities governments and communities we provide practical solutions that enhance local capacity enable sustainable financing and expedite actions to safeguard public health ecosystems and create a thriving water future for all.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.3%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 90.3%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $70.14 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: -10%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.1%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 72.9% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 48.8% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 60.9% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.3% of revenue deployed · 90.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $7.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $180K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $820K reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 43 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.