The International Society for Ecology and Culture

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943128274
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
East Hardwick, VT, USA
Phone
8023079502
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$563,812
Expenses
$543,739
Assets
$1,358,599
Liabilities
$493,054

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Helena Norberg-Hodge (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Helena Norberg-Hodge (Executive Director): $81,250 total reported compensation
  • Steven Gorelick (Chief Financial Officer): $8,250 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

ISEC's mission is to protect and renew ecological and social well-being by strengthening local economies and communities worldwide. Our focus is on education -- informing people of the common root causes of the many ecological, social and economic crises we face, and promoting systemic solutions.

What it reported doing in 2024

Word Localization Day. WLD 2024 events were held in 25 countries, including New Zealand, Switzerland, Cameroon, Bangladesh, Portugal, Spain, Australia, the UK, the US and Japan. A total of 89 events were registered through our online form. However, some of these were campaigns that led to broader actions. For example, the World Farmers Markets Coalition registered their #EatLocalChallenge involving over 70 member associations in 50 countries, representing 20,000 farmers markets, 200,000 families and over 300 million consumers. For WLD 2024 we developed and offered many free resources, including: toolkits for organizing film screenings and local food feasts; free localization films for community screenings; webinars from world localization leaders; our updated Localization Action Guide; and a series of visual posts that have been shared widely through social media. We also created a new WLD website in-house, which now enables us to update and add new material on an ongoing basis. Our own contributions to WLD activities were three events to mark the launch of our new film Closer to Home.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has grown recently. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.2%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 15.4%; rating input score 15; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.6%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.5; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.5%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.2% of revenue deployed · 85.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $466K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $81K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.