Basta Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
421688855
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
2137365050
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,335,005
Expenses
$3,677,928
Assets
$2,550,088
Liabilities
$1,662,411

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIEL J BRAMZON (EXECUTIVE DIR.): $264,939 total reported compensation
  • ROSS KUTASH (ATTORNEY): $225,616 total reported compensation
  • KEVIN HERMANSEN (ATTORNEY): $185,440 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Basta has focused its mission on helping low-income tenants in the county of los angeles regardless of race, age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality, immigration status, or anything else. Basta: (a)provides legal counsel and trial representation; (b)promotes, advocates, and defends the constitutional right to a jury trial; (c)undertakes appellate work in a variety of circumstances; (d)eradicates substandard housing through class actions, mass actions, and other affirmative litigation; (e)enforces local housing ordinances through impact litigation; (f)assists tenants in foreclosed properties; (g)offers relocation aid to displaced tenants; (h)undertakes homelessness prevention activities; (i)acts as a liaison between hud and housing cooperatives; (j)organizes inspections of substandard housing; (k)provides tenant advocacy assistance at agency hearings; (l)conducts community education and outreach; and (m)educates students on tenant rights and slum housing issues.

What it reported doing in 2020

Project: non-profit housing cooperatives. Through this project, basta provides litigation support and "advice and counsel" to non-profit housing cooperatives, defends these non-profit entities in lawsuits from external threats (e.g., former management companies or other vendors), represents co-op residents in derivative-style lawsuits, and interacts with hud on the co-ops' behalf.project: basta universal!. Beginning as a pilot project in late 2019 whereby the organization's attorneys would provide completely pro bono legal representation at every courthouse in the county of los angeles - on a last minute basis on the actual date of trial - the successful pilot project later incorporated as a separate entity and became a subcontractor for the stayhoused la (shla) program. Shla is an entirely publicly funded "public defender" style program for eviction defense cases. The legal aid foundation of los angeles (lafla) administers the shla program on behalf of the city of los angeles, county of los angeles, and city of long beach (among other municipalities).project: tenant power collections. This necessary project, an enforcement wing of justice, focuses on collecting attorney fee awards and other judgments against landlords awarded by the courts to tenants and their counsel.project: tenant appeals

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 93% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 62
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.8%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 85.9%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -10.3%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.69; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.65; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 30.8%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.3% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.8% of revenue deployed · 85.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $265K · 9 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $121K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2012 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.