Environmental Community Advocates of Galena Park

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
451457199
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Galena Park, TX, USA
Rating
38
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$307,494
Expenses
$300,576
Assets
$151,552
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CRUZ HINOJOSA (PRESIDENT)
  • JUAN FLORES (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CRUZ HINOJOSA (PRESIDENT)
  • JUAN FLORES (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARIA BARRAZA (TREASURER SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of environmental community advocates of galena park (ecagp) is to organize and educate the community about environmental conditions in galena park, Texas, and surrounding areas. All activities (past, present, and future) are aimed at raising public awareness around

What it reported doing in 2025

4/13-01/26 block captains program- the block captains program in galena park has grown into a highly productive, community-driven initiative that strengthens communication, safety, and neighborhood pride. Block captains have helped create a direct line between residents and our organization, ensuring concerns are heard quickly and resources reach the right places. Their presence has encouraged cleaner streets, more engaged neighbors, and faster reporting of issues like lighting, trash, or safety concerns. Most importantly, the program has built a sense of unityneighbors know one another, look out for each other, and feel more connected to the community they call home. Cost: 5050

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 86% 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

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 18
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 18
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 13%; rating input score 13
  • Program expense ratio: 13.3%; rating input score 13
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 72.7%; rating input score 73; 0th 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.2%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.5; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -134.5% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25.9% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.6% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 13% of revenue deployed · 13.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 8 filed program accomplishments · $40K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 24 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 13/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.