Lake Michigan States Section of the Air & Waste Management Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 363218793
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2020–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2010
- Location
- Palatine, IL, USA
- Phone
- 8472020418
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Professional Societies, Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $66,605
- Expenses
- $74,728
- Assets
- $10,261
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
People named in this filing
- Daniel Robertson (Chair)
- Sarah Langeliers (Vice Chair - Programs)
- Jerry Strub (Secretary)
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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide education, training and information exchange for environmental professionals.
What it reported doing in 2025
Regularly scheduled professional development meetings (monthly/bimonthly presentation briefings and webinars) featuring a variety of environmental topics of current interest by environmental experts over the course of the year to an audience totaling approximately 500 persons in the environmental profession including students.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 87
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 31
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 91.4%; rating input score 91
- Program expense ratio: 81.4%; rating input score 81
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -12.2%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.14; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 25.6% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 15.8% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -12.8% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 91.4% of revenue deployed · 81.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 5 filed program accomplishments · $61K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
- 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.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.