Community Initiatives for Collective Impact

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822822850
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Merced, CA, USA
Phone
2097693231
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,565,545
Expenses
$749,441
Assets
$1,020,066
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Stergios Roussos (President / CEO)
  • Martha Armas-Kelly (Vice President / Treasurer)

Highest reported compensation

  • Stergios Roussos (President / CEO): $117,250 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to join diverse people, ideas, and resources to address the most pressing social and environmental justice priorities. We believe that the community concerns of Californias San Joaquin Valley SJV can only be addressed if we find ways for collective action.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community Programs Ci4Ci develops and implements activities to engage residents of Merced who are experiencing social and environmental justice problems. e.g., racism, food insecurity These programs provide education and training for residents to become problem-solvers with public agencies and local leaders. During 2024, we provided programs to increase communication about racism and violence, to improve access to nutrition food especially for children, and to help youth explore careers that would help them and their families move out of poverty.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 65
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.9%; rating input score 45
  • Program expense ratio: 93.8%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 52.1%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.36; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.6%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 59.9% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 126.7% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.9% of revenue deployed · 93.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $703K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $117K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.