Climate Justice Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
853440899
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Berkeley, CA, USA
Phone
2024558665
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Quality, Protection, and Beautification N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,080,028
Expenses
$26,423,102
Assets
$4,051,866
Liabilities
$647,059

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KATHERINE CHAVEZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (AS OF NOV 2024))
  • MONICA ATKINS (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • OLIVIA BURLINGAME (COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR): $157,065 total reported compensation
  • KATHERINE CHAVEZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (AS OF NOV 2024)): $155,907 total reported compensation
  • MONICA ATKINS (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $148,677 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Climate justice alliance (cja) is a growing member alliance of more than 85 urban and rural frontline communities, organizations, and supporting networks in the climate justice movement. Cja unites our membership to build local, community controlled alternatives that center traditional, ecological, and cultural knowledge and create pathways for a regenerative future.

What it reported doing in 2024

Supported member organizing and exchange of just transition solutions, models, best practices, challenges, and lessons learned. Provided technical assistance and leadership-, capacity-, and skill-building among our members, our power communities, and just transition regions through collaborative trainings, trainings-oftrainers, and convenings to build common analyses and principles, and coordination of translocal actions and mobilizations on key campaigns.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 75% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 92.2%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.86 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 31.7%; rating input score 32; 13th 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: -191%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.15; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.5%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 54.3% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -13.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 92.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $24.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $157K · 16 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $123K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 47 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 33 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.