Where do they work?
Who works there?
What do they do?
What have they accomplished?
Financial data
How do they raise money?
Media and public discussion of the organization
Assessment by greendonor contributors

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has headquarters in New York and regional offices in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and San Francisco. Most of its activities are focussed on the U.S.A., with some elsewhere, notably Canada and South America.

The staff of 268 (May 2005, NRDC website) includes President John H. Adams, Executive Director Frances Beinecke and Deputy Director Patricia F. Sullivan, with the remainder allocated as follows:

Program and number of staff Advocay Center 10 Air & Energy 22 Climate Center 12 Health 10 International 10 Land & Forests 8 Litigation 3 Nuclear 4 Urban 19 Water & Coasts 21 TOTAL 119

Other catgories and number of staff Administration & finance 26 Communications 17 Development 28 Membership & Public Education 9 Special Project Advisor 1 Staff Assistants 65 TOTAL 146

The large 39-member Board of Trustees includes 12 people from business, 6 (including the Board Chairman) from law firms, 4 foundation directors or staff, 4 from universities, 2 artists, 2 actors (Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert Redford), a Producer, singer-songwriter James Taylor, and a journalist, investor, environmentalist, conservationist, physician, and staff member of another NGO, plus Dr. George Woodwell, Director of the Woods Hole Research Center. There are also 19 Honorary Trustees with varying backgrounds.

NRDC is a high profile activist environmental organization focussed mainly on the United States. The organization is a combined government watchdog and attack dog. Its staff analyze government's environment actions (and inaction), and advocate changes or launch court challenges and lawsuits. According to NRDC's Director of Development Jack Murray, "NRDC probably has the largest staff of attorneys of any environmental organization." It also mobilizes as government lobbiests its 550,000+ members and a similar number of online activists in its "Earth Activist Network". The NRDC website has information on various issues along with a way for its supporters to send a form e-mail message to their legislators.

NRDC is active in the following seven areas:

• Air and Energy — clean air standards, global warming, transportation, energy efficiency, electricity generation
• Health — safe drinking water, pesticides, industrial chemicals and other environmental health threats
• International — rainforests, biodiversity, habitat preservation, oceans and marine life, nuclear weapons, global warming
• Land and Forests — national forests, parks, private forest lands, wood product consumption
• Nuclear — nuclear weapon issues, nuclear waste, security and control
• Urban — air and water quality, habitat and open space, garbage and recycling, transportation, water supply, sprawl, environmental justice
• Water and Coasts — water quality, fish populations, wetlands, oceans

NRDC's IRS Form 990 for its 2002-2003 fiscal year has six pages on program accomplishments for the year, showing an impressive breadth of specific issues tackled.

The organization's website makes particular note of these recent accomplishments:

2004  Blocking the Bush administration's attempt to liberalize emission standards for power plants, refineries and factories;

2003  Halting worldwide deployment of a US Navy sonar system on the basis that it could harm whales;

2002  Blocking the Bush administration's plans to permit oil exploration near the Arches National Park in Utah (working with other environmental groups);

2001  Helping secure an agreement to protect millions of acres in the Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia from logging;

2000  Forcing Mitsubishi to abandon plans to construct a salt factory near the breeding ground of the gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus).

Table 1: Basic financial data for Natural Resources Defense Council for the most recent years.

FISCAL YEAR	FINANCIAL DATA rounded to million (M) or thousand (K)		EXPENDITURES percent of total expenses
2003 (ending June 30, 2003)	Total revenue: Total expenses: Total assets (yr-end): Total liabilities (yr-end):	$59.8M $51.1M $101M $21.2M	Programs: Administration: Fundraising: ------------------ wages/benefits: professional & consulting fees:	81% 7% 12% ------------------ 38% 10%
2002 (ending June 30, 2002)	Total revenue: Total expenses: Total assets (yr-end): Total liabilities (yr-end):	$49.3M $43.4M $89.7M $18.3M	Programs: Administration: Fundraising: ------------------ wages/benefits: professional & consulting fees:	79% 8% 13% ------------------ 41% 13%
2001 (ending June 30, 2001)	Total revenue: Total expenses: Total assets (yr-end): Total liabilities (yr-end):	$55.7M $39.1M $90.2M $18.3M	Programs: Administration: Fundraising: ------------------ wages/benefits: professional & consulting fees:	81% 8% 11% ------------------ 38% 12%
NOTES:
Source: IRS Form 990 (courtesy of www.guidestar.org).
Assets: in the most recent year (2002-2003), the main components were: securities (62%) land, buildings, & equipment (15%) pledges receivable (13%) cash (6%)
Liabilities: in the most recent year (2002-2003), the main components were: accounts payable & accrued expenses (36%) charitable gift annuities (28%) mortgages & other notes payable (25%) pooled income funds (5%)
The figure for wages/benefits is the amount across all 3 categories (program, administrative and fundraising) as a percent of total expenses. Likewise for professional/consulting/contract fees.
Professional fundraising fees averaged $772,001 for the three years (12% of fundraising expenditures).

Table 2: Breakdown of revenue for the 2002-2003 financial year.

Revenue Category	As percent of total revenues
Private individuals, companies, foundations1	92%
Program service revenue (including government contracts)	3%
Net investment income & interest	2%
Government grants	1%
Other2	1%

1 We will ask for a breakdown of this category into the three components.
2 "Other" revenue: net revenue from: rent, asset sales other than securities, inventory sales, and special events, plus "other income".

Table 3: Breakdown of program expenditures by program.

Program	As percent of total program spending
Environmental programs1	79%
Public education	16%
Member services	5%

1  See next table.

Table 4: Breakdown of the environmental portion of program spending.

Program subsection	As percent of environmental program spending
Land	21%
Climate	21%
Water	15%
Air	12%
Cities	10%
Global/Nuclear	10%
Legislative advocacy	7%
Health	5%

Lobbying expenditures amounted to $862K in 2002-2003, of which 25% was for grassroots lobbying. Lobbying made up 2% of program spending.

Table 5: Compensation for senior full-time staff for the 2002-2003 financial year.

Compensation	Number of individuals	Job title(s)
$285,624	1	President
$186,755	1	Executive Director
$166,044	1	Senior Attorney
$162,900	1	Development Director
$142,178-$148,508	6	Deputy Director; Finance Director; Senior Scientist; Director of Programs (2 positions); Director of Communications

Table 6: Compensation for the five highest paid independent contractors (firms or individuals) for professional services in 2002-2003.

Service	Compensation
events planning	$3,015,982
construction	$1,834,552
advertising	$892,442
fundraising	$397,959
fundraising	$361,030

Sources of revenue in 2004 were:

[further info pending]

While NRDC enjoys wide popular support among environmentalists, it has not gone without criticism from some. Author and environmentalist Michael Frome, for example, wrote in 2003, "When I read the quarterly journal of the Natural Resource Defense Council I find a list of board members and their affiliations. They are largely Wall Street lawyers and investment counselors." In fact, there are more business people than lawyers and there seems to be just one investment analyst at present. And why wouldn't an organization with most ($63-million in 2002-2003) of its assets invested in securities have an investment analyst on its Board? Lawyers and business people also seem appropriate as Board members.

In 2000, Bernardo Issel of Nonprofit Watch took NRDC to task over its failure to oppose the commercial development of the Ballona Wetlands in Los Angeles, CA (see see article), noting that NDRC's Chairman had been a corporate lawyer with the law firm that represented key investors in the real estate project. Issel charged that the organization was flawed by special relationships, saying, "NRDC's conflicts of interest coupled with the group's neutrality are the nonprofit equivalent of political campaign financing by special interests."

In response, NRDC's Jack Murray told Greendonor in May 2005, "We didn't want to see the Ballona Wetlands developed. We were asked to become involved in a big way, but we were engaged in some major litigation on sewer runoff in Santa Monica Bay and on air quality. We didn't have the money or staff to get involved. Los Angeles is our smallest office." Added Murray, "We are asked to do a lot of things, and we have to put it through a screen of priorities and funding."

Another point of controversy was NRDC's role in bringing Enron to the West Coast. In December 2001, Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair faulted NRDC's energy team member Ralph Cavanagh for paving the way for Enron to enter the West Coast energy market. According to the authors, Cavanagh told Public Utility Commissioners in Oregon, "The Oregonian asks the question, 'Can you trust Enron?' On stewardship issues and public benefit issues I've dealt with this company for a decade, often in the most contentious circumstances, and the answer is, yes." Cockburn and St. Clair went on to argue that Cavanaugh's backing played a decisive role in allowing Enron to enter the West Coast energy market.

NRDC's Murray replied, "Our energy team feels pretty burdened by this. Cockburn never had the courtesy to contact NRDC, or we would have told him the charge was nonsense. NRDC has taken a leading role in helping to repair California's shattered electric and gas sectors."

NRDC has also been criticized for manufacturing crises intended to bring in donations. Critics have specifically pointed to the portrayals of threats to the Atlantic Swordfish and risks associated with the use of Alar in apple harvests as being inaccurate. The organization is currently working to preserve Canada's boreal forest, and the NRDC website raises an alarm about hydro and road development in Manitoba and its impact on the boreal forest. But is that an important issue? Surely, global warming poses a far greater threat to the Canadian boreal forest.

According to NRDC's Murray, the Council's top priorities are climate change, oceans and natural resources. "Climatechange is not an easy thing to raise money for," he said. "So most of our non-designated money goes into climate change." Murray added that the organization tries to respond to local issues through its Biogem program. "That's money you can't spend on climate. And we feel it's worth doing," he explained.

Finally, as noted earlier, NRDC's website features form e-mail messages for people to sign and send to their legislators. But is that effective? Said Murray, "We've sent over 9 million email messages in the last couple of years. People do actually take action on those emails. In terms of effectiveness, I think on some things it makes a difference. On the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, it probably doesn't."

[This section awaits the accumulation of input from visitors to the greendonor site.]