North Carolina Environmental Justice Network
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 205966295
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2016
- Location
- Raleigh, NC, USA
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Alliance/Advocacy Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $845,741
- Expenses
- $1,147,948
- Assets
- $1,131,606
- Liabilities
- $7,866
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- RANIA MASRI (CO-DIRECTOR): $92,750 total reported compensation
- CHRIS HAWN (CO-DIRECTOR): $92,350 total reported compensation
- VALERIE A JOHNSON (CO-DIRECTOR): $60,575 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Educational activities to promote environmental justice.
What it reported doing in 2024
NCEJN is a coalition of community organizations & their supporters who work with low wealth communities & people of color to promote health and environmental equity, clean industry, safe work places & fair access to all human & natural resources. We accomoplish these goals through organizing, advocacy, research & education based on principles of economic & political equity. We organized public education events including the screening of films covering environmental justice issues (e.g. flooding and the waste problems of industrial agriculture) and webinars (e.g. disaster preparedness). We continued and expanded our university partnerships to bring environmental justice matters and community based research best practices to university students across North Carolina. We helped communities advocate for safer environments for themselves through attendance at public hearings and board and council meetings and social media.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 69
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 25
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 78.8%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 20.3%; rating input score 20; 26th 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- 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: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -35.7%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.99; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 21.4%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 24.1% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 18.1% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 27.5% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 78.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $905K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $93K · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 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.
- 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 20/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.