Eviction Defense Collaborative Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943342323
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4159470797
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$22,721,996
Expenses
$22,023,270
Assets
$7,480,210
Liabilities
$4,926,404

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOSEPHINE ALIOTO (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIEL CASANOVA (Executive Dir.): $200,874 total reported compensation
  • ORA PROCHOVNICK (Dir. of Litigation): $159,114 total reported compensation
  • KRISTA ALDERSON (Director of Dev): $150,656 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Eviction Defense Collaborative strives to prevent homelessness, preserveaffordable housing, and protect the diversity of San Francisco. We work toward thesegoals by providing emergency rental assistance and by helping low-income tenantsgain equal access to the law in order to assert their rights in court.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Shelter Client Advocates(SCA) program served 387 unhoused individuals residing in shelters funded by the City and County of San Francisco who were facing Denials of Service (DOS, or eviction) from such shelters. The SCA team completed 586 shelter hearings and arbitrations for Denials of Service. The SCA program provides shelter residents with due) process at shelter eviction hearings, monitors shelter conditions and the application of shelter rules, and provides informal conflict resolution between the shelter staff and residents. San Francisco is unique in the country in that it provides a formal grievance process for those who have been denied services from City funded shelters. In 2022, the San Francisco Shelter Grievance Policy was codified into law after years of advocacy by a citywide coalition of homelessness advocates, including the EDC Shelter Client Advocacy Program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 95% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.1%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 88.8%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $47.14 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.1%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.34; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.66; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.3%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.5% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.6% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.1% of revenue deployed · 88.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $19.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $201K · 11 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $398K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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.

  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.