Consumer Watchdog
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 953993720
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Phone
- 3103920522
- Rating
- 85
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Consumer Protection
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,893,051
- Expenses
- $5,743,220
- Assets
- $5,335,939
- Liabilities
- $1,371,975
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JAMIE COURT (PRESIDENT)
- CARMEN BALBER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- JAMIE COURT (PRESIDENT): $418,791 total reported compensation
- CARMEN BALBER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $237,305 total reported compensation
- PAMELA PRESSLEY (SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY): $234,787 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To conduct educational and research activities and litigation on consumer and public interest issues including, without limitation, issues affecting consumer protection and government reform; and to make said research available to the public.
What it reported doing in 2024
In 2024, cwd issued 90 news releases and generated approximately 2000 news stories on these topics that appeared on state and national television and radio programs, and in print and online news outlets.litigation -- consumer watchdog (cwd) works to protect consumers in the courts and before administrative agencies. Cwd litigated to protect consumer access to the health care and insurance benefits they are promised, prevent insurance companies from violating consumer protection laws, ensure transparency in government, and return illegal insurance overcharges. In 2024, cwd's interventions at the California department of insurance to prevent excessive insurance rate increases by auto and home insurance companies saved consumers $1 billion on home and auto insurance. Cwd also challenged home insurance companies' failure to give homeowners rate relief for taking steps to protect their homes from wildfire, and auto insurance company practices making it harder for good drivers to obtain coverage. Cwd testified at multiple workshops at the department of insurance to expose loopholes and consumer harms in proposed regulations regarding the use of black box wildfire models and reinsurance costs, advocating for accountability, reliability and transparency as insurance companies seek new ways to raise rates. Cwd continued litigating suits against auto insurance companies for discriminating against certain members of the military and for overcharging policyholders during the coronavirus pandemic, and continued representing plaintiffs living with HIV in a suit against cvs for unlawfully disclosing HIV status and/or putting individuals at risk of such a disclosure, as well as providing them a lower tier of service.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 68% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 90
- Transparency & Controls: 81
- Accountability: 88
- Sustainability: 36
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 92.4%; rating input score 92
- Program expense ratio: 94.6%; rating input score 95
- Fundraising efficiency: $29.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- 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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 14th 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: 2.5%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.93; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 25%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 92.4% of revenue deployed · 94.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $5.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $419K · 10 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $2.3M reported
- Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.