Washington Conservation Action Education Fund
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 910839385
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2020
- Location
- Seattle, WA, USA
- Phone
- 2066312600
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Alliance/Advocacy Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,057,979
- Expenses
- $5,890,040
- Assets
- $8,971,702
- Liabilities
- $804,746
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
27 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ALYSSA MACY (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- ALYSSA MACY (CEO): $238,655 total reported compensation
- CHRISTINA WONG (VP OF PROGRAMS): $147,463 total reported compensation
- DAVID GORTON (VP OF DEVELOPMENT): $146,336 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 champion policies that center the expertise and resilience of overburdened communities for environmental progress and justice in the pacific northwest.
What it reported doing in 2024
Evergreen forests: Washington conservation action education fund's forest program works to ensure Washington has a strong regulatory and policy framework that guides the responsible management of state and private forests. Through convening, legislation, advocacy, education, and government accountability work, we promote management of forests ecosystems that addresses the climate and biodiversity crises and supports rural communities. The program's four thematic areas of work are: science-based forest practices, ecological management of public state trust lands, community and ecological resilience to wildfire, and building climate-smart wood supply chains.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 86% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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
STRONG - 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: 84
- Transparency & Controls: 81
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 97.4%; rating input score 97
- Program expense ratio: 81.1%; rating input score 81
- Fundraising efficiency: $7.06 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th 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: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 78.5%; rating input score 78; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
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: -16.5%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.52; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 17.5%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 97.4% of revenue deployed · 81.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $4.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $239K · 27 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $973K reported
- Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 11 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.