Environmental Research & Education Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521804051
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Raleigh, NC, USA
Phone
9198616876
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,393,318
Expenses
$7,583,363
Assets
$18,305,562
Liabilities
$1,584,318

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRYAN F STALEY (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRYAN F STALEY (PRESIDENT & CEO): $440,834 total reported compensation
  • KYLE KUSTERER (VP OF DEVELOPMENT): $216,824 total reported compensation
  • SUZANNE BOXMAN (DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS): $154,811 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To advance scientific research and create educational pathways that enable innovation in sustainable waste management practices.

What it reported doing in 2024

Research projects - each year eref funds and oversees research projects related to a variety of waste management topics including landfill operations, recycling, and safety.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 53% for direct work, and 47% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 33
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 35.1%; rating input score 35
  • Program expense ratio: 38.4%; rating input score 38
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.2%; rating input score 99; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 25th 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: 19.3%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.41; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.2%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 35.1% of revenue deployed · 38.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $441K · 22 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 41 of 42 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 23 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 18 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.