Restorative Justice Partners Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770168443
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2010
Location
Marina, CA, USA
Phone
8318697641
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Delinquency Prevention

Reported finances

Revenue
$482,195
Expenses
$468,309
Assets
$301,502
Liabilities
$118,528

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jennie Burciaga (Executive Director)
  • Charles DaSilva (President)
  • Esther Rubio (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jennie Burciaga (Executive Director): $101,871 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

RJP, Inc. works with those affected by conflict, providing support and education to encourage accountability, empathy and reparation.

What it reported doing in 2025

SCHOOLS: 94%(268/283) of program participants rated the RJ Schools workshop/training as useful to better understand the use of restorative justice practices to support school climate and culture transformation. Workshop training provided to 297 adults, the team supported additional on-site support services for 15 adults with restorative practices, trained 22 Peer Mediators, and 165 students were supported through on-site services & peer mediation training by RJP, Inc. throughout Monterey County. Participants added: "The steps toward restoration and resolution are important and well explained."- High School Teacher (YORK) "[What went well was] Actually going through a circle ourselves. Although I tend to react negatively when we have to get up as adults and interact during meetings, but I think this was totally worth it. By going through the steps ourselves, it is easier to imagine what our students will need to do." - Elementary School Teacher (SCESD) "I thought doing a staff respect agreement was useful and beneficial as a school as a whole." - Elementary School Teacher (SCESD) Additionally, Restorative Justice Partners, Inc. enjoyed partnering with the following collaboratives this year: Monterey County Office of Education, School Climate Leadership Team David and Lucile Packard Foundation Salinas Youth Initiative, Community Restorative Justice Commission, Monterey County Blue Ribbon Task Force City of Seaside

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 65% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.5%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 97.3%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 64th 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.9%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.64; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.39; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.8%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.5% of revenue deployed · 97.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $456K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $102K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 40 of 40 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.