Us Climate Action Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204597308
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
3013750476
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Pollution Abatement and Control Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,727,893
Expenses
$1,658,889
Assets
$4,319,742
Liabilities
$245,386

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dr Ife Kilimanjaro (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dr Ife Kilimanjaro (Executive Director): $179,643 total reported compensation
  • Carrie Clayton (Deputy Director): $137,579 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 build trust & alignment among its members to fight climate change in a just & equitable way.

What it reported doing in 2024

MEMBER DEVELOPMENT & TRAINING - USCAN focuses on strengthening network infrastructure and processes while providing development opportunities for its members. This includes webinars, professional development training, equity training, capacity-building resources, security resource handbooks, and Mutual Aid grants to support members in crisis. These efforts aim to enhance members' skills, knowledge, and resilience to address the climate crisis effectively.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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 - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.4%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 54.9%; rating input score 55
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 24%; rating input score 24; 26th 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 4%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.6; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.1%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.4% of revenue deployed · 54.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $911K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $180K · 17 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.
  • 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 53/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 24/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.