Literacy for Environmental Justice

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010777856
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4152826840
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development - Agricultural

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,204,234
Expenses
$1,399,730
Assets
$1,179,618
Liabilities
$72,108

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Wendy Brummer (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Hollis Pierce Jenkins (Executive Dir.): $148,196 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

LEJ promotes ecological health, environmental stewardship, and community development in Southeast San Francisco by creating urban greening, eco-literacy, community stewardship and workforce development opportunities that directly engage and support local residents in securing a healthier future.

What it reported doing in 2024

LEJ serves the Bayview-Hunters Point community in Southeast San Francisco.San Francisco is a tale of two cities. On the citys western side, residents enjoy a wealth of parks such as Crissy Field and the new $118 million Presidio Tunnel Tops Park; healthy food options from large grocery stores to boutique markets to countless restaurants; and the peace of mind and freedom that comes with living in a safe, low-crime neighborhood.Across the city in the southeast, lies a different San FranciscoBayview-Hunters Point. For decades, this historically African American community has served as the dumping ground for San Franciscos dirty utilities, heavy industry, and toxic pollution. This three-square-mile industrial neighborhood is bordered by two freeways and home to 700 hazardous waste sites, 325 underground petroleum storage tanks, two Superfund sites, and decades of illegal dumping (SF Department of Public Health -SFDPH).It is also home to 34,000+ residents, 26% of whom are under the age of 18the highest percentage of children of any San Francisco neighborhood (SFDPH). According to CalEnviroScreen, 80% of Bayview-Hunters Point residents are people of color with 33% identifying as African American (the citys largest concentration of African Americans), 34% as Latinx, and 25% as Asian American. Approximately 40% of families in Bayview-Hunters Point are severely low-income, living twice below the federal poverty levela cycle of poverty that will continue without education and workforce development opportunities. Unlike families on the western side of the city, a healthy stroll around the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood is not an option. In addition to air pollution from heavy industry and the neighboring freeways, more than half of Bayview residents report feeling unsafe in their community. Bayview-Hunters Point has double the violent crime rate of San Francisco as a whole (SFDPH).According to the SFDPHs Bayview-Hunters Point Community Resiliency report, Bayview-Hunters Point received Low to Very Low rankings for residents access to healthy food. In addition, that same report noted that unlike other parts of San Francisco, healthy, green parklands and trees are scarce in this heavily industrialized neighborhood.LEJ serves over 1,000 SFUSD youth each year and works closely with community organizations to engage youth and young adult audiences in our environmental education and workforce development programs. We engage Bayview residents in volunteer park stewardship, workshops, and environmental advocacy.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 78% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.3%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 74.7%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.06 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th 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: 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -16.2%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.84; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.6%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.3% of revenue deployed · 74.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $148K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • 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.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.