Contra Costa County Caer Group Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680325428
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Martinez, CA, USA
Phone
9253139296
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$230,394
Expenses
$241,495
Assets
$97,448
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • TONY SEMENZA (Executive Dir.): $41,460 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

THE Contra Costa County Community Awareness and Emergency Response (CAER) Group, Inc. HAS FOUR CORE OBJECTIVES: Safe Industrial Facility Operations, Coordinated Emergency Response, An Effective Safety Sharing Forum, AND A Trust-Based Relationship with the Community. To achieve its mission, CAER will: Facilitate the cooperative safety improvements of industrial plant operations, Promote coordinated mutual emergency aid, Provide emergency preparedness and response training to the public, Openly communicate and respond to the public's concerns about safety of industrial facility operations, Offer credible facts and analysis on the efficacy of public policy related to public safety issues and safe facility performance, Facilitate community interaction with agencies and industrial entities.

What it reported doing in 2025

The purpose of the contra costa county caer group is to promote better understanding of and response to chemical emergencies within the community. Several strategies will be employed to accomplish this objective. Education about chemicals within the community and their necessity will be undertaken. Activities in planning, drills, and preparation for chemical emergencies will be conducted. Mutual aid networking will be established to identify emergency response capability available, if called upon, in a crisis situation. "caer" an acronym for "community awareness and emergency response" describes the purpose of this organization. Through better understanding, education, and planning, caer proposes to reduce the likelihood of a chemical emergency within the community. Furthermore, should an emergency situation arise within the community, its negative impact will be minimized.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 74% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.7%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 54.1%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 6th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.8%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.4; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.2%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.7% of revenue deployed · 54.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 0 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $131K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $41K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.