Neighbors for Environmental Justice
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 832706522
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2019
- Location
- Chicago, IL, USA
- Phone
- 7736339934
- Rating
- 65
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Environmental Quality, Protection, and Beautification N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $693,872
- Expenses
- $362,359
- Assets
- $837,442
- Liabilities
- $20,064
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Anthony Moser (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Alfredo Romo (Executive Dir.): $99,298 total reported compensation
- Myrna Salgado-Romo (Treasurer): $16,098 total reported compensation
- Lucinda Stanfield (Secretary): $1,198 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 mission of Neighbors for Environmental Justice is to foster awareness, organize and promote community action on environmental justice to achieve environmental health and just transition by preventing and reducing pollution and building a green, healthy and sustainable community and environment.
What it reported doing in 2024
In 2024, Neighbors for Environmental Justice (N4EJ) made significant strides in promoting environmental justice across Chicago, particularly on the southwest side. Key accomplishments included the opening of N4EJs first office in McKinley Park, the launch of the Southwest Air Quality Index (SWAQI), and the release of the Paid to Pollute investigative report, highlighting how the City of Chicago fails to enforce environmental standards for contractors. The organization also held its first fundraiser, the Setting Roots Celebration, and hosted a series of Environmental Justice (EJ) Walking Tours and community events like the Neighbors in Nature series, engaging over 350 residents. N4EJ expanded its air quality monitoring network by purchasing 8 new PurpleAir sensors and partnered with local schools to integrate environmental justice topics into STEM education. N4EJ also worked to raise awareness and advocate for policy change through collaborations like the Chicago Coalition to End Sacrifice Zones and its partnership with the Metropolitan Planning Council to address zoning and pollution issues in McKinley Park. Additionally, N4EJs leadership in the Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) contributed to shaping future environmental and zoning decisions in vulnerable neighborhoods. The organization celebrated its 5th anniversary, reflecting on its growth and community support, while also laying the groundwork for future initiatives to expand air quality monitoring, strengthen environmental justice curricula in schools, and continue advocating for cleaner air and stronger enforcement of environmental laws.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 97% 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
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 48
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 56
- Sustainability: 71
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 35.3%; rating input score 35
- Program expense ratio: 67.5%; rating input score 68
- Fundraising efficiency: $16.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd 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: 80%; rating input score 80; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 47.8%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.31; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 33%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 19% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 46.3% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 35.3% of revenue deployed · 67.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $245K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $99K · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 35/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.