Whidbey Environmental Action Network
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 911656410
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021, Form 990-N 2018
- Location
- Langley, WA, USA
- Phone
- 3604047870
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Alliance/Advocacy Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $407,869
- Expenses
- $380,165
- Assets
- $315,622
- Liabilities
- $6,651
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARNIE A JACKSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- MARNIE A JACKSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $125,098 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Protecting ecosystems on whidbey, camano, and beyond through civic education, policy advocacy and litigation.
What it reported doing in 2025
Delivered programs in priority activity areas of Environmental Education; Civic Action; Policy Advocacy; and Litigation. Digitized four decades of records pertaining to programmatic achievements. Created monthly newsletter and new social accounts. Hosted in-person and online constituent events and film screenings. Surveyed constituents. Nurtured relationships with nonprofit partners and regional experts, and local leaders to increase effective advocacy for forest protection; shoreline resilience; environmentally friendly housing & infrastructure; and comprehensive planning. Convened farmers, environmentalists, and climate activists to help inform Island Countys Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. Participated in Island County and City of Langley comprehensive planning processes. Participated in Island County Department of Public Healths Community Partner Meeting. Participated with Soundwide Consortium to advocate for enforcement in shoreline management act rulemaking. Provided substantive comments to Island County when permit applications suggested a likelihood of substantial environmental harm. Engaged with Economic Development Council and local Chambers of Commerce about the inherent and financial value of healthy ecosystems. Developed a program to download institutional knowledge from founders through interviews and recordings.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 94% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 58
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 40
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 60.3%; rating input score 60
- Program expense ratio: 63%; rating input score 63
- Fundraising efficiency: $7.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.8%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.83; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 32.9%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 33.4% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 23.1% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 16.9% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 60.3% of revenue deployed · 63% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $239K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $125K · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.