California Environmental Justice Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
850592960
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
6198850254
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,671,631
Expenses
$5,208,594
Assets
$6,952,755
Liabilities
$1,489,718

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Lovisa Stannow (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Lovisa Stannow (Executive Director): $128,592 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to fight against fossil fuel executives and industries that have turned our communities into dumping grounds for toxic waste, poisoning our air, water, lan, and bodies. We organize to oppose giant oil refineries, dirty gas-fired power plants, and drill sites next to our homes and schools. We organize against oil and gas lobbyists who have bought off politicians and rewrote our states climate policies to pad their profits, in order to bring environmental justice to our communities.

What it reported doing in 2023

Energy Justice Project: Seeks to ensure California transitions equitably from dirty fossil fuels to 100% clean, renewable energy by mobilizing residents in low-income communities of color to advocate for the expansion of renewable energy access and small-scale clean energy generation in their commumities. CEJAs Regenerate California campaign is part of this project, with our partner the Sierra Club. This campaign seeks to shut down all gas-fired power plants in California and replacing them with community-beneficial clean energy and other projects. CEJAs SOMAH (Solar on Multifamily Affordable Housing) program is another component that seeks to ensure equitable access to rooftop solar, energy bill savings and paid job training opportunities in th solar industry.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.

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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 35%; rating input score 35
  • Program expense ratio: 71.7%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $41.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 66th 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: 51.2%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.33; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 35% of revenue deployed · 71.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $129K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 33 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.