The District of Columbia Employment Justice Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522235570
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2028289675
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$72,299
Expenses
$191,774
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Omar Vincent Melehy (Board President)
  • Miles Sedgick (Vice President)
  • Philip Fornaci (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Philip Fornaci (Executive Director): $22,500 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The District of Columbia Employment Justice Center (EJC)'s mission is to secure, protect and promote workplace justice in the D.C. Metro area.

What it reported doing in 2017

Advocacy: Through our advocacy program, the EJC works for systemic change to address the collective problems faced by low-income workers, such as our campaign to improve wage theft laws and enforcement in DC. Recognizing that legal advice and representation generally address the problems of one individual at a time, the EJC also identifies issues for systemic reform. The EJC also led the coalition to encourage enforcement of the Wage Theft Prevention Act in 2013, which tripled the damages employers face when they fail to pay the wages they owe their employees, and the Minimum Wage Amendment Act of 2014, which raised DC's minimum wage over three years to $11.50 per hour and index it to inflation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and the required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 8
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 39.1%; rating input score 39
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • 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: -165.3%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.7%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -23.1% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -12.5% per year; rating input score 0; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -19% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 39.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $75K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $22K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2011 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Program expense ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.