Generation Atomic

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
814500446
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Saint Paul, MN, USA
Phone
2183841645
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Energy Resources Conservation and Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$732,027
Expenses
$1,046,762
Assets
$156,540
Liabilities
$123,364

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ERIC G MEYER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ERIC G MEYER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $57,853 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Generation atomic's mission is to inspire and empower advocates for a world powered by clean atomic energy.

What it reported doing in 2024

A year of progress and power2024 marked a transformative year for generation atomic, defined by major policy victories and creative public engagement that proved nuclear advocacy works when it combines serious policy expertise with joyful human connection.the year's signature achievement came with passage of the advance act, federal legislation modernizing nuclear regulations. Hundreds of our supporters contacted elected officials, helping power this victory onto president biden's desk. Our advocates testified at over 20 nrc hearings supporting crucial projects like the historic palisades restart, while tracking over 70 pieces of nuclear legislation nationwide. (see sch o).in Minnesota, we achieved something remarkable: the dfl made only one platform change this year - striking "we support decreasing dependence on nuclear energy" from their platform. This tectonic shift, won through strategic organizing at precinct caucuses and the state convention, signals radically changed opinions on nuclear in our home state.we pioneered a new advocacy approach: the radioactive banana stand. From pride festivals to the state fair, we handed out over 5,000 bananas while having thousands of conversations about clean energy. The model was so effective we're scaling it nationally with a full advocacy toolkit.our global presence expanded at sb60 in bonn and cop29 in baku - our eighth consecutive year at un climate talks. We hosted our second annual symposium during New York climate week, attracting 200 attendees, and represented nuclear at the first nuclear energy summit in brussels with leaders from 30 countries.the atomic ambassadors program equipped 132 new advocates with communication skills, now available as a self-paced online course. We partnered with women in nuclear to exhibit at national science teacher conferences, selling scores of megawatt card games and connecting with hundreds of teachers interested in bringing energy education into their classrooms.our digital impact continued to grow considerably. By year's end, our community included: - 30,074 facebook followers (3 million reach) - 16,500 twitter followers (863,700 impressions) - 13,900 tiktok followers (4.1 million views) - 8,719 linkedin followers (754,778 impressions) - 7,476 instagram followers (1.1 million reach) - 2,249 youtube subscribers (231,000 views)the achievements of 2024 represent a movement gaining real momentum - from capitol hill to state legislatures, from un climate talks to small-town festivals, generation atomic demonstrated that informed, passionate advocacy can advance nuclear energy's role in our clean energy future.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 69% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 86.6%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.6%; rating input score 99; 47th 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: -43%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.15; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.79; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.5%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 35.3% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 28.6% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.7% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $907K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $58K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 32 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.