Consumer Advocacy Group Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 954738518
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Beverly Hills, CA, USA
- Phone
- 6264873222
- Rating
- 51
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Legal Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $306,719
- Expenses
- $309,195
- Assets
- $30,105
- Liabilities
- $312,629
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- WILLARD BAYER (COO/PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- WILLARD BAYER (COO/PRESIDENT): $90,625 total reported compensation
- MICHAEL MARCUS (CFO/TREASURER/SECRETARY/DI): $7,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Consumer advocacy group's mission is to act in the public interest and pursue a clean, healthy, sustainable society by enforcing environmental laws and protecting consumers from unnecessary, dangerous chemicals.
What it reported doing in 2025
Legal settlements from environment protection lawsuits.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- 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
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 53
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 9
- Sustainability: 19
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 59.9%; rating input score 60
- Program expense ratio: 59.4%; rating input score 59
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -0.8%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.1; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 10.38; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 31.6%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 59.9% of revenue deployed · 59.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 2 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $184K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $91K · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- 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: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.