Oregon Environmental Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
930578714
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5032221963
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,401,399
Expenses
$2,426,153
Assets
$4,124,833
Liabilities
$510,673

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEAN WILSON (President)
  • DEBRA DUNN (Vice President)
  • ELIZABETH SILBERG (Vice President)
  • PHILIP WU (PAST PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JANA GASTELLUM (Executive Dir.): $176,936 total reported compensation
  • MARGARET DILLENDER (DEP DIR PHILANTHRO): $138,642 total reported compensation
  • KEVIN KASOWSKI (SR DIR OF GIVING): $125,824 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Oregon environmental council champions equitable, innovative, and collaborative solutions to oregons environmental challenges for today and future generations.

What it reported doing in 2024

Climate protectionoec identifies and promotes solutions to address climate change, including investments and policies that reduce emissions and increase resilience to ever-worsening climate impacts. In fy24-25, we participated in a nearly year-long rule advisory committee that resulted in re-adoption of oregons climate protection program, a hallmark initiative that reduces emission across major sources of climate pollution and also creates community climate investments that benefit vulnerable communities.oec secured $15 million for the healthy homes program to help low-income oregonians remove toxic materials like asbestos and lead from their homes as well as lower home energy bills. Oec also helped secure an offshore wind roadmap to include community and tribal engagement, requirements for utilities to provide more updates on regional transmission, and a law that will increase construction of energy storage systems. Oec served on the Oregon climate commission and the clean tech task force.oec helped plan and launch the inaugural Oregon clean grid summit that convened stakeholders from business, nonprofit, development, and governmental sectors. We developed the e-forward education and outreach campaign to help households including those that are low-income, geographically diverse, and underserved cut energy use and reduce their environmental impact. In addition, oec worked in partnership with environmental justice and clean energy partners to participate in public utility commission processes. Oec served in leadership roles to support the Oregon climate equity network, coalition for climate and economic justice, natural climate solutions, and Oregon clean grid collaborative. We serve as the fiscal sponsor for the building resilience coalition. Oec also launched a partnership with Oregon state university to secure four polaris electric utility vehicles (utvs) for its agricultural research stations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 60.2%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.76 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.4%; rating input score 98; 35th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • 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%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.7; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.2%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62% of revenue deployed · 60.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $177K · 17 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.