Critical Resistance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204412916
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
5104440484
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Prison Alternatives

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$904,529
Expenses
$1,431,515
Assets
$3,626,165
Liabilities
$128,011

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Shirley Leslie (Devel Dir/Secty): $118,979 total reported compensation
  • Gabriel Ervin (Co-Director): $104,189 total reported compensation
  • Mohammed Shehk (Co-Director): $103,743 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Critical Resistance seeks to build an international movement to end the prison industrial complex (PIC) by challenging the belief that caging and controlling people makes us safe. We believe that basic necessities such as food, shelter, and freedom are what really make our communities secure. As such, our work is part of global struggles against inequality and powerlessness. The success of the movement requires that it reflect communities most affected by the PIC. Because we seek to abolish the PIC, we cannot support any work that extends its life or scope.

What it reported doing in 2024

Other Program Accomplishments Combined - Strategic Communications activities have included: Supported the creation of media materials for NYC, LA, Portland, and Central Appalachia coalitional work; organized and facilitated spokesperson trainings in NYC and LA; distributed written communication to CRs Portland, NYC, LA, and Central Appalachia regional email lists; and interviewed with regional radio and press, produced educational materials and graphics related to campaigns. Maintained the NYC, LA, and Portland prisoner mail programs; created press releases and communications materials to support advocacy of immigrants detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in New York, as well as what the Portland city budget could fund instead of policing; created and distributed communication related to the Dignity Not Detention campaign in NY, the campaign against FCI Letcher in Kentucky, and the work to reduce the policing budget in Portland.Leadership Development activities have included: Conducted capacity building trainings and workshops with our Portland, NYC, LA, and Central Appalachia members in areas including regionally specific campaign planning and implementation, base building, fundraising, media advocacy and organizational development; held in-person events and gatherings in Portland, LA, and NYC; provided trainings, workshops, and presentations for community members and organizations across Portland, NYC, and LA. Organizational Development activities have included: Held in-person workplanning retreats in our CR NYC, Portland, LA, and Central Appalachia chapters, and continued implementation of annual workplans; coordinated regional grassroots fundraising activities. Supported the onboarding and development of new chapter members in NY, LA, and Portland. Supported the creation of a new CR regional chapter in Central Appalachia and supported onboarding of those new chapter members. Grassroots Organizing activities have included: Implemented our campaign work through: public educational events; produced educational and organizing materials; held in-person and virtual mobilizations aimed at building broad-based community member engagement and grassroots support; organized actions and public events to build community member engagement and grassroots support in Portland, Los Angeles, and NYC; developed and presented workshops about our campaigns. Continued our Dignity Not Detention NY legislative campaign in New York through organizing in-person rallies, public forums, and engaging volunteers through virtual gatherings. LA chapter continued its work in the CA prison closure campaign by supporting the relationship-building with California prisoners and their loved ones, contributing to the legislative strategy, organizational outreach, and media work. The Portland chapter built grassroots power with individuals and local organizations to advocate for a reduction to the Portland policing budget. The Central Appalachia chapter continued to attend coalitional meetings and gatherings, and build relationships with community members to advocate to halt the construction of a federal prison in Letcher County, Kentucky. Continued Zachary Project fund committee to support members in times of crisis. Dispersed funds, and distributed communications to the funds email list.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.2%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 58.8%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

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: 80%; rating input score 80; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -58.3%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.53; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.8%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.9% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.2% of revenue deployed · 58.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $842K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $119K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.