Women for a Healthy Environment

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472651553
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Phone
4124042872
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,800,967
Expenses
$2,871,215
Assets
$1,130,444
Liabilities
$447,618

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHELLE NACCARATI-CHAPKIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHELLE NACCARATI-CHAPKIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $147,405 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Women for a healthy environment uses a scientific approach to achieve equitable lives free of environmental hazards through advocacy and community-based programs.

What it reported doing in 2024

Coalition get the lead (pb) out, pittsburgh campaign and lead safe allegheny coalition: during early 2018, whe staff convened a group of nonprofits and academic researchers interested in focusing on lead exposure, including strategies that address primary prevention and early intervention. This led to the creation of a countywide coalition, including participation from government agencies and healthcare providers to nonprofits, that have a common goal of developing strategies and resources to reduce the number of children with elevated blood lead levels. In fy 25, whe also was the recipient of a cdc childhood lead poisoning prevention grant that also supports this work. The goal of that grant is to increase the number of children screened for lead and the number of home investigations that occur when a child is diagnosed with an elevated blood lead level. This past fiscal year, the coalition worked within allegheny county to provide leadership and advocacy that advances strategic initiatives and fosters collaboration among the community by focusing on primary prevention and ultimately creating a lead safe environment. The coalition advocates to ensure we maintain public vigilance until we have achieved our overall goal of protecting children by eliminating harmful exposure to lead in all sources. Under the epa renovation, repair and painting (rrp) regulation, contractors must be certified when working in homes, childcare facilities and preschools built before 1978 where lead paint will be disturbed. During this fiscal year, whe subsidized the training for one rrp class that was held in a high priority community based on the percentage of children with elevated blood lead levels. The lead safe allegheny coalition hosted its fifth annual life without lead summit that educated individuals about the importance of lead prevention and childhood lead screening. The conference had over 100 registrations from across the county. Whe staff also provided lead education via community workshops and participated in outreach events - in person and virtually - to raise awareness about lead prevention and connected families to local resources. Over 30 community workshops and meetings with municipalities in high priority communities were held. Whe coordinated six lead inventory and risk assessments for families in need that have young children. In addition, the coalition was instrumental in calling for the formation of a countywide housing advisory committee. Whe is the convenor of the radon in pa schools workgroup, a partnership among school personnel, healthcare providers, radon professionals and community members affected by cancer. This workgroup continues to meet to raise the public's awareness of radon exposure in the learning environment and conduct educational meetings with government representatives and elected officials. Whe continues to be the "go-to" source for reliable scientific information on environmental hazards that impact public health. To celebrate whe's fifteen-year anniversary, it held two events during fy 25. The first was a virtual event highlighting the climate change advocacy work of high school students across the pittsburgh metro region. These young leaders shared their experiences, challenges, and successes in pushing for policy changes, raising awareness, and organizing community-driven solutions. The second event was part of whe's annual speaker series. The keynote speaker was andrea vidaurre, climate justice leader, advocate for frontline communities, and 2024 goldman environmental prize winner for protecting frontline communities from toxic air pollution in her home state.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 63% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% 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: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 88.8%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.79 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 81.3%; rating input score 81; 35th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -59.4%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.39; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.4; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.3% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 88.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $147K · 18 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $403K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 12 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.