Partnership for Environmental Technology Education Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
860761421
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
South Portland, ME, USA
Phone
2077719020
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,410,139
Expenses
$2,423,757
Assets
$568,302
Liabilities
$188,611

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • KIRK LAFLIN (EXECUTIVE DI): $197,915 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To establish and maintain a national focus for environmental technician training through regionally accredited two-year colleges and associate degree-granting institutions.

What it reported doing in 2024

Continue to expand on the use of online hazmat training program and the development of augment reality training. National institute for environmental health sciences niehs: hwwt grant, hdptp-dsw & doe awards; us department of transportation, phsma-hmit hazmat training grant award and cccc earth nsf subaward. We were successful in conducting a disaster resource for training institute under niehs-hdpt and several us dot hazmat training workshops face to face. Worked with niehs in the development of training programs and essential worker return to work training materials. Provided management services for the national environmental and health training association(neshta). With the earth nsf subaward implemented two instructor professional development workshops and developed best practices booklet with the military section completed. Tribal is still under development. Started a discussion and planning new website, immersive ed/avr projects. Development of hazwoper sims as an instructor resource with the petes hazwoper manual.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 97% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 40% for direct work, and 60% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.5%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 93%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.6%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.33; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.2%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.5% of revenue deployed · 93% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $198K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 14 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.