Institute for Justice and Journalism

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263672469
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Berkeley, CA, USA
Phone
2029076961
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Printing, Publishing

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$185,785
Expenses
$270,816
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dawn Garcia (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Phuong Ly (Executive Dir.): $85,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide fellowships, conferences and web-based resources to strengthen news coverage of immigration and other social justice issues.

What it reported doing in 2016

Journalism Fellowship 2016: Focus on Immigrant Children and Education. Eighteen journalists were chosen from a competitive application process to attend a training March 30-April 1 at Georgia State University in Atlanta. After the training, the fellows produced in-depth stories published and broadcast by their news organizations. The stories illuminated the challenges faced by immigrant children as they navigate U.S. public schools IJJ believes that training journalists helps produce better journalism, which leads to more informed discussion and debate about social justice issues. Casey Data Institute: IJJ provided trainers and organized the Casey Data Institute for the Annie E. Casey Foundation, May 3-5 in St. Louis. About 70 people from nonprofits working on children and family issues participated in the data visualization training.Migrahack 2016: An immigration data hackathon was held in Chicago June 3-5. More than 90 journalists, developers, graphic designers and immigration advocates came to Chicago from all over the country. Over the weekend, they participated in an intense day of training and came out with 12 projects. The projects not only told the stories of individuals but also challenged reform efforts that were already in place, offering a deeper look at the reach of immigration criminalization. Money & Politics in Immigration Detention Journalists Training: IJJ held a training program for journalists on money and politics in immigration detention. The seminars and workshops were held at the University of Denvers Sturm College of Law, Sept. 12-13, and covered issues such as the privatization of immigration detention and the workings of immigration courts. Seventeen journalists from around the country were selected to attend, from a competitive pool of applicants.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 4
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 73.9%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 67.6%; rating input score 68; 42nd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -45.8%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.4%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -16.3% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -91.3% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 73.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $200K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $85K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2014 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.