Center for Worker Justice of Eastern Iowa

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461235166
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Iowa City, IA, USA
Phone
3195947593
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$144,903
Expenses
$700,935
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Greg Hearns (Vice President)
  • Marcela Hurtado (President)

People named in this filing

  • Charles Eastham (Director)
  • Margarita Baltazar (Director)
  • Elizabeth Bernal (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

CWJ is organized around the following priority issues: workers rights to proper payment and safe work, protecting/improving housing options, ensuring equal access to community services for all residents, and empowering assistance to those affected by immigration policies.

What it reported doing in 2025

Defending workers rights to proper payment and safe work. Our community organizers took on cases throughout the past year recovering of stolen wages. By working with victims to file claims with regional and federal labor agencies, sending letters to employers, sending delegations and protests to businesses, CWJ was able to recover wages. We also collaborated with the University of Iowa Labor Center to host a worker education workshop series called Stepping Up for Iowas Future, a program focused, in part, on increasing workplace health safety amongst young construction workers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 61% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 8
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 69.6%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 33.7%; rating input score 34; 43rd 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: -383.7%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 69.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $488K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 34/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.