Coming Clean Inc

What it reported doing in 2024

Accomplishments: network-wide general stragegy meeting coming clean and ejha co-convened a 3-day gathering of coming clean member-organizations and ejha affiliates in los angeles. The event was locally-hosted by physicians for social responsibility- la. Over 100 individuals from 45 organizations participated in the meeting. This was coming cleans first general strategy gathering since the pandemic. Memebers renewed our commitment to center the louisville charter for safer chemicals in our collective work, and move aggressively toward the vision of the charter. Hazardous facilities in spring 2024, after a multi-year collective advocacy effort, the environmental protection agency (epa) finalized the safer communities by chemical accident prevention rule which updated the risk management program (rmp) rule to further protect vulnerable communities from chemical accidents, especially those living near facilities in industry sectors with high accident rates. Strengthening the rmp rule has been a longstanding priority for the environmental justice health alliance for chemical policy reform (ejha) and coming clean networks as it regulates around 12,000 high-risk facilities that manufacture, use and stockpile highly hazardous chemicals such as those used in agriculture (pesticides, fertilizers and the intermediary chemicals used to make the final product), plastics, waterproofing (pfas) and other products. Fenceline communities neighboring these facilities are disproportionately black, latino, low-income and have low access to healthy foods. These communities are disproportionately impacted not only by chemical emissions from these facilities, but also many non-chemical stressors, including but not limited to low access to healthy foods, and ongoing chemical disasters from these facilities. Epa agreed to perform a review to update the list of facilities included in the rmp rule. They also signaled that they would make certain rmp data publicly available, and did so when releasing the final rule.hazardous facilities -- the epa instituted significant new protections against worst-case hazardous chemical discharges, following years of advocacy and litigation by environmental justice groups and frontline communities. This regulation, which is more than thirty years overdue, fills critical gaps in the nation's environmental safety net, requiring facilities to develop comprehensive plans to prepare for and respond to worst-case chemical discharges near waterways. The rule addresses a major vulnerability in the protection of the country's waterways and communities. Thousands of facilities that manufacture, use and store some of the most dangerous chemicals brush up against waterways or are in flood-prone areas. The new policy comes after numerous disasters affecting drinking water supplies, wildlife habitats, and environmental justice communities that experience the brunt of extreme weather supercharged by climate change. The final rule mandates that many of this countrys most dangerous chemical facilities near waterways must prepare facility response plans, which critically must account for the impacts of climate change and potential harms to nearby environmental justice communities. The final rule covers more facilities than epas proposal would have, after changes epa made in response to comments from ejha, coming clean, clean water action, and natural resources defense council. The rule also allows people in frontline communities to petition the epa if they believe a nearby facility that has not prepared a response plan should have to do so. Farmworker health & justice members of coming cleans farmworker health and justice team played a key role in epas decision to suspend use of the herbicide, dcpa. Dcpa has been shown to have an extremely high risk of developmental effects from exposture during pregancy, including low birth weight, impaired brain development, decreased iq, and impaired motor skills.cumulative impacts & mandatory emissio

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 87.7%; rating input score 88
• Program expense ratio: 86%; rating input score 86
• Fundraising efficiency: $42.55 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
  • Compensation committee: Missing
  • Independent consultant: Missing
  • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
  • Written employment contract: Missing
  • Compensation survey or study: Missing
  • Board or committee approval: Pass
• Foreign activity oversight: Limited
• Grant itemization coverage: 91.6%; rating input score 92; 27th 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: 9 of 9 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: Pass
  • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
  • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
  • Audit committee oversight: Pass
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

• Operating margin: -1.4%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.1; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 20.4%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 16.2% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 26.6% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings