Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 521184315
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2026773001
- Rating
- 67
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,871,268
- Expenses
- $1,545,020
- Assets
- $1,333,528
- Liabilities
- $183,437
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Lorraine Maltby (Vice President)
- Amanda Reichelt-Brushett (immediate Past-President)
- Bart Bosveld (Executive Director)
- Nile Kemble (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Tamar Schlekat (Science Director): $176,937 total reported compensation
- Bart Bosveld (Executive Director): $122,162 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Promote environmental science and management through education, collaboration, communication and leadership.
What it reported doing in 2025
To organize workshops to address shared environmental challenges and to identify solutions to those concerns.To hold multi-disciplinary meetings to disseminate the latest environmental science research and application tools and to facilitate networking.To convene focused topic meetings and symposia to summarize the state of the science on a specific environmental issue to managers and regulators for informed policy making.To promote opportunities in the field and recognize excellence with awards and grants
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, 3% for grants, and 20% for affiliated organizations.
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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 51
- Transparency & Controls: 72
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 53
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 53.2%; rating input score 53
- Program expense ratio: 63.6%; rating input score 64
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Limited
- Conducts field audits: Limited
- May suspend future funding: Limited
- Requires financial reports: Limited
- Conducts site visits: Limited
- Requires grant agreements: Limited
- May require repayment: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: 17.4%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.86; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.9%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -3.7% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 53.2% of revenue deployed · 63.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $982K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $177K · 14 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.