Environmentally Conscious Consumers for Oil Shale

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
208892884
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2013
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Grand Junction, CO, USA
Phone
9702413008
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$96,035
Expenses
$87,860
Assets
$31,525
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

People named in this filing

  • PEGGY RECTOR (CHAIRPERSON)
  • JEFF COMSTOCK (SECRETARY/TREASURER)
  • BILL JOHNSON (VICE CHAIR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote, through education of the public, the environmentally responsible development of oil shale reserves in the rocky mountain region for the purpose of increasing national independence from foreign energy and strengthening the local economy.

What it reported doing in 2013

Attended local trade shows, service clubs, chambers of commerce and class rooms, as well as responded to requests by various elected officials (local, state and national) to attend hearings or speak and answer questions relating to the environmentally responsible development of oil shale reserves.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and assets have declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.5%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 90.2%; rating input score 90

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.5%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.36; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 29.6% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.6% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.5% of revenue deployed · 90.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $79K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.