Pesticide Action Network North America

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942949686
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Berkeley, CA, USA
Phone
5107889020
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,151,146
Expenses
$2,548,463
Assets
$2,787,748
Liabilities
$223,198

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jennifer Lamson (President)
  • Iris Figueroa (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Allison Davis (Executive Dir.): $128,507 total reported compensation
  • Inanna Hazel left 524 Mng (Director): $48,549 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

PAN's mission is to end reliance on hazardous pesticides and achieve health, resilience and justice in food and farming. We establish partnerships with impacted communities, support grassroots and coalition organizing, and facilitate relationships and networks of partners and other alliesstate, national and international in order to build a more powerful movement. We advocate for changes in policy and practice as well as culture and power shifts as we pursue our goals. We are one of five regional centers who cooperate to transform systems of food and farming across the globe.

What it reported doing in 2024

Core programs - PAN has campaign activities in three key agricultural states, as well as national and international programs. Our state campaigns in California, Iowa and Minnesota use coalition organizing, strategic communications and grassroots science to raise public awareness about pesticide harms and build momentum toward a healthier food and farming system. This year our successes included 1) an international mandate at the UN to phase out Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) by 2035; 2) supporting pesticide-impacted communities, farmworkers, and community-scale farmers in their work to support transformational change in state and federal pesticide and food systems policy and 3) promoting the principles of agroecology as a viable alternative to pesticide-based systems and a key to addressing climate change PAN builds network power through strategic alliances with other organizations, particularly those whose members are on the frontlines of harm from chemical-intensive agriculture (e.g., farmworkers, rural families, community-scale farmers and Indigenous communities). Our campaign work often leads to the creation of formal coalitions for which PAN may act as facilitator, administrator and/or fiscal sponsor.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 88% 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. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.7%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 70.6%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.1%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.09; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.9%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.5% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.7% of revenue deployed · 70.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $129K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 38 of 38 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.