California Institute for Rural Studies

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942446268
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2012
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
7602623953
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$51,028
Expenses
$98,349
Assets
$12,051
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MEGAN BEAMAN JACINTO (PRESIDENT, T)

People named in this filing

  • PAOLA ILESCAS (DIRECTOR)
  • MEGAN BEAMAN JACINTO (PRESIDENT, T)
  • JUAN DE LARA (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The California institute for rural studies conducts community-driven research for action in rural communities working for justice, equity, and health. We have a vision for rural life in California that is radically transformed as systems of oppression and extraction give way to systems which are life-affirming, sensitive to many types of knowledge, equitable and reflective of the rich cultural landscape of rural California.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cirs creates research-based tools in partnership with rural communities of color who are working to eradicate white supremacy, take down colonial power structures and replace dysfunctional institutions. Our research methods reflect our belief that people have the right to tell their own stories and that research which deepens their ability to understand, interpret and describe their lived realities is a key for social transformation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 59.5%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -92.7%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.12; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 59.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $58K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.