Naphthalene Council Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
651274701
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2012–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2011, Form 990-EZ 2018
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Phone
7032998470
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Reported finances

Revenue
$62
Expenses
$21,206
Assets
$63,386
Liabilities
$1,378

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANNE P LEHURAY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • HEATH HUSCHAK (CHAIRMAN)
  • RALPH CARMICHAEL (SECRETARY/TREASURER)
  • ANNE P LEHURAY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

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 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The objective of the corporation is the improvement of conditions of business involving naphthalene through promotion of safe handling, use and transportation of naphthalene and substances that contain naphthalene as a component compound.

What it reported doing in 2018

The corporation addresses environmental issues relating to naphthalene by providing data to appropriate regulatory bodies. Since inception, the corporation has provided data to a number of federal agencies and has met with agency staff scientists to discuss the data (epa, dod, doe, nasa, dept. Of agriculture). The corporation co-founded an independent symposium that reviewed the state of naphthalene science. Other co-sponsors included the environmental protection agency. This activity is conducted by the executive director in conjunction with staff of participating coalition trade associations and retained consultants.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -34,103.2%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.99; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -34.8% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2012 to 2018
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.