South Carolina Environmental Law Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
571031430
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Pawleys Island, SC, USA
Phone
8435270078
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,003,666
Expenses
$2,224,736
Assets
$3,338,459
Liabilities
$168,129

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • AMY E ARMSTRONG (EXECUTIVE DI): $216,130 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL CORLEY (DEPUTY DIREC): $142,841 total reported compensation
  • LESLIE LENHARDT (SR. MANAGING): $140,329 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We use our legal expertise to protect the land, water and communities across South Carolina.

What it reported doing in 2025

In the face of the worsening climate crisis and escalating loss of wildlife, habitat, and healthy ecosystems, in 2021 scelp adopted a new 5- year plan, including three ambitious programmatic goals. To protect life-sustaining natural systems, scelp has continued acting as the last line of defense against harmful land uses, using litigation and advocacy to establish new and better law for land, water and wildlife; and supporting nature-based laws and policies that promote resilience and adaptation. To protect water from current and future threats, scelp has been advocating for sustainable water uses, for conservation and restoration of water quality and aquatic life, and for legal protections for state-of-the art stormwater and floodplain practices. To advance environmental justice across South Carolina, scelp's legal advocacy has been countering environmental inequities in frontline communities, carrying forward scelp's original motto "no case is too small" whenever a vulnerable community seeks assistance in our areas of expertise. Our areas of expertise include coastal management, water and wetlands, wildlife and habitat conservation, landfills, nuclear and toxic waste. Each program service includes legal advice and consultation, legal advocacy to improve projects and management decisions without the need for litigation, and formal legal challenges and enforcement actions.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.6%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 71.2%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 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: -11%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.5; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 34.1%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.7% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.6% of revenue deployed · 71.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $216K · 19 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 38 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.