Environmental Justice Coalition for Water

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202539559
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9164323529
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$642,253
Expenses
$793,267
Assets
$622,556
Liabilities
$72,069

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Colin Bailey (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Colin Bailey (Executive Director): $75,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (EJCW), formed in 1999, is a network of volunteer and non-profit organizations from throughout California working to ensure that water policies in the state meet the economic, environmental, and health needs of all people, particularly low-income and people of color communities. The EJCW serves as a public voice and advocate of environmental justice issues in California water policy. We recognize that access to safe, affordable water is a crucial part of achieving economic development, a clean environment, and ensuring public health for low-income communities and communities of color.

What it reported doing in 2016

EJCW has achieved the following in the past fiscal year: 1) Expanded on a body of educational materials, including fact sheets, an environmental justice and water leadership training curriculum, and our website, to convey our message on the human right to water and other water-justice awareness-building campaigns. 2) Educated more than 280 individuals throughout California on water justice issues, at various workshops, trainings, meetings, conferences, and other outreach opportunities, focusing on a unified message of sustainable and equitable water governance for California. 3) Assisted disadvantaged communities to develop project ideas and funding applications, capacity building, technical assistance, and regional planning, etc., to address drinking water- and sanitation-related needs. 4) Initiated a multi-year program in the San Francisco Bay Area to involve residents of Disadvantaged Communities in watershed planning and project development through outreach and education, data collection and analysis, problem and solution identification and prioritization, technical assistance and project development. 5) Worked with allies to educate the public and decision-makers about the water crisis in California, including the drought, sea level rise, saltwater intrusion, extreme weather events, the intermittent nature of water supply, degradation of upper watersheds and stress on overtaxed ecosystems and the local economies (including affordable housing, etc.) that depend on them, and other water-related impacts of a changing climate. 6) Lead a regional planning effort designed to identify and meet the drinking water and sanitation needs of disadvantaged communities in the Salinas Valley and surrounding areas of California's Central Coast, including the addition of several emergency interim drinking water projects and a domestic well outreach and education project for communities with contaminated water sources. 7) Participated in a state-agency-hosted, multi-stakeholder planning process to design a statewide water utility ratepayer assistance program in 2018.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 85.2%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.45 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -23.5%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.78; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.5%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 42.2% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 26.7% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.7% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 85.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $676K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $75K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.