East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
465685097
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3232632113
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,050,897
Expenses
$1,525,251
Assets
$8,997,731
Liabilities
$62,394

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • YESENIA FERNANDEZ PHD (PRESIDENT)
  • SUZETTE AGUIRRE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • LAURA CORTEZ (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • TAYLOR THOMAS (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TAYLOR THOMAS (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $65,274 total reported compensation
  • LAURA CORTEZ (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $65,167 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To build the capacity of community members to inform public policy related to air quality, environmental health and the built environment, to participate in existing partnerships, and to help foster new environmental justice alliances.

What it reported doing in 2025

710 - as a part of the coalition for environmental health and justice (cehaj), we continued to engage and guide the redevelopment of the i-710 south corridor freeway project. We expanded the advisory process to include local residents, and developed metrics for capital projects.zero wastesb 54 - as a part of the environmental justice coalition against plastics, we supported a community member's seat on the advisory board, where they are tasked with developing strategies to reduce plastic production and waste in California.compost hub - the compost hub completed its third year in operation, and was able to host dozens of volunteers and divert a ton of waste. The compost hub expanded outreach and collection to a local farmers market that reached hundreds of residents each week.housing - we successfully supported hundreds of tenants in learning about their rights and changes to tenant laws in several municipalities and at the state level. We supported residents advocating for tenant protections at several municipal cities.exide - we outreached to homes contaminated with lead by the now-shuttered exide battery recycling plant to educate them on the opportunity to have their soil cleaned up. We supported the workers who cleaned the soil and ensured that property safety protocols were followed, and workers' rights were enforced.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.4%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 79.6%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 25.6%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.9; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.6%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.8% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 29.1% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62.4% of revenue deployed · 79.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $65K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.