We Want Green Too

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
455324148
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Detroit, MI, USA
Phone
3139245037
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Job Training

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$702,157
Expenses
$475,136
Assets
$550,866
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GLORIA LOWE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ZUBERI MOORE (OPERATIONS DIRECTOR): $45,000 total reported compensation
  • GLORIA LOWE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $40,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

WE WANT GREEN TOO's community-driven program will provide instruction in environmental literacy, skills and green job readiness. The purpose is to facilitate a secure learning environment that will use the classroom, a specially designed online platform, and hands on training that will equalize the learning environment for differently-abled veterans and returning citizens experiencing difficulty in learning new 21st century skill sets. This format will allow accessibility to information that will connect education to employment, for those individuals diagnosed with PTSD. The program leads to benefits to the community by decreasing air pollution, unemployment, and improving public health.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provided both in-person Professional training and online educational classes, with all work experience to prepare trainees for jobs in energy efficiency and the attainment of Professional certifications. Supplemental support and education were provided in the form of exam preparation, math and English problem solving skills, critical thinking and independent learning, in order to increase student success. Conducted door-to-door outreach to connect with community, and held public education forums with the assistance of volunteers. Students were informed and made aware of employment pathways in Solar and Energy Efficiency industries. Community members were educated on lessening the effects of energy burden the benefits of energy initiatives. Program included community input to reduce many of the contributing factors experienced by members of the community through education and training. Program demonstration hubs provide an occasion to see these resources in their neighborhoods. The program outcomes provide spillover benefits to the community by increasing capacity for energy upgrades, increasing energy efficiency and improving maintenance, while also reducing homelessness and contributing to the reduction of stress, depression, and other health factors, that jeopardizes a safe, secure, and healthy living environment in the area where we operate. Provided safety-training that is applicable to work in the industry and that is compliant with State and National standards. Program activities lead to opportunities to test and obtain professional certifications. As a result of program activities, hazardous waste material was properly removed from the community and work area if it could not be recycled or salvaged to otherwise reduce environmental impact and remediate community resources. Program activities directly supported the education, training and employment of Veterans with PTSD, jobless youths, and other under-served individuals in the local community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 75
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41.7%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 61.7%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.96 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 32.3%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.16; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.9%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19.1% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 54% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 41.7% of revenue deployed · 61.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $293K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $45K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.