Berggruen Governance Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
274167613
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
2123802230
Rating
52
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$514,117
Expenses
$279,025
Assets
$23,287
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NICOLAS BERGGRUEN (PRESIDENT)
  • JARED BLUESTEIN (VICE PRESIDENT & SECRETARY)
  • DAWN NAKAGAWA (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAWN NAKAGAWA (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $291,474 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization has been formed for the purpose of the promotion of social welfare, including but not limited to, the promotion of the common good and general welfare of the people of the community, bringing about civic betterments and social improvements, and the promotion of principles, policies, and ideas of good governance.

What it reported doing in 2015

Think long committee for California. The purpose of this project is to benefit the California community by educating the public on California's system of governance, the parts of it that are broken, and the possible solutions that can be developed to improve it. The committee is composed of prominent californians who come together to develop solutions and raise public awareness of what can be done to fix the system. The group continued to reach out to the public and organizations across California to keep them aware of changes to the California system of governance, such as the initiative reform bill.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 99% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 26
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.9%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 90.1%; rating input score 90
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th 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: 45.7%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.08; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -34.8% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -29.8% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.9% of revenue deployed · 90.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $251K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $291K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2011 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 6 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.