West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project (Woeip)

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN: 202384563
IRS 990 coverage: 2019–2024
Forms available: Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2013
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Phone: 5102575645
Rating: 60
Verdict: SUPPORTED
Rating confidence: Moderate
Sector: Energy Resources Conservation and Development

Reported finances

Revenue: $2,221,103
Expenses: $2,607,765
Assets: $3,319,547
Liabilities: $2,832,178

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

BRIAN BEVERIDGE (PRESIDENT, TREASURER, AND)
MARGARET GORDON (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

MARGARET GORDON (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $164,360 total reported compensation
BRIAN BEVERIDGE (PRESIDENT, TREASURER, AND): $152,142 total reported compensation
JESSICA SANDS (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF DIGITAL ENGAGEMENT): $134,523 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide residents with the tools to participate in the political, social, and natural forces that impact their lives through environmental justice, air quality research, and coalition building.

What it reported doing in 2024

Advocacy and policy: woeip helps ensure that local, regional, state, and federal policies and regulations reflect the principles of environmental justice by delivering training, consulting, and advisory services to government agencies and their staff, community groups, nonprofit organizations, and other stakeholders working on issues of air quality, energy resilience, climate change, and environmental justice.

Operating model

Revenue model: Other-operating. 62% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

Financial Efficiency: 65
Transparency & Controls: 65
Accountability: 45
Sustainability: 20
Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

Mission deployment rate: 77.1%; rating input score 77
Program expense ratio: 65.6%; rating input score 66
Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
Foreign activity oversight: Limited
Grant itemization coverage: Limited
Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Limited
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

Operating margin: -17.4%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.27; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.85; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Officer compensation ratio: 17.3%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

Program expense growth: 35.1% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
Revenue growth: 31.2% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
Asset growth: 42.9% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

Where the money goes: 77.1% of revenue deployed · 65.6% of spending went to programs
Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.7M in reported program spending
Leadership: top reported pay $164K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $1.1M reported
Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
Contacts: How to reach this organization
Money network: 3 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.