Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
371256850
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Hillside, IL, USA
Phone
8477207880
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,550,539
Expenses
$1,578,304
Assets
$419,610
Liabilities
$173,206

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Zachariah Adelman (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Zachariah Adelman (Executive Director): $191,637 total reported compensation
  • Mark Janssen (Emissions Director): $170,365 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium is formed by the air pollution control directors of the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin to provide technical assessments for and assistance to its member states on problems of air quality; and to provide a forum for its member states to discuss air quality issues.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) was formed in 1989 by the air pollution control directors of the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin for the purpose of managing an ozone modeling study for the lower Lake Michigan area in accordance with a memorandum of agreement between the four states. Over time (and in accordance with subsequent MOAS), LADCO's mission evolved to include other regional pollutants (E.G. area encompassed by toxics), other geographic areas of concern (E.G. area encompassed by its member states), and even, at the direction of the member states, activities that are national in scope. In 2004, the state of Ohio joined LADCO, and in 2012 the state of Minnesota joined LADCO.The purposes of the consortium are to: provide technical assessments for and assistance to its member states on problems of air quality issues; provide a forum for its member states to discuss air quality issues; encourage, among its members, the exchange of knowledge, experience, and information related to air quality issues; promote communication and understanding of air quality issues and studies in cooperation with the United States Environmental Protection Agency; provide information and respond to questions related to the work of the consortium; receive and disburse funds from and to any source to further the purposes stated herein; and organize and coordinate training for its member states.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.7%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 81.3%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.8%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.9%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.5% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.7% of revenue deployed · 81.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $192K · 8 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.