Berkeley Lab Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462907726
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
5104867573
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,960,505
Expenses
$7,483,597
Assets
$28,419,113
Liabilities
$1,491,064

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ALICIA CHANG (TEMPORARY PRESIDENT (THRU 10/24))
  • JAKE DEMOE (PRESIDENT (AS OF 10/24))

Highest reported compensation

  • JUNE YU (DIRECTOR): $542,792 total reported compensation
  • ELIZABETH PULLING (DIRECTOR, TREASURER): $422,842 total reported compensation
  • ALICIA CHANG (TEMPORARY PRESIDENT (THRU 10/24)): $272,835 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 support the scientific and educational purposes of the regents of the university of California (the "university"), in its specific capacity as manager and operator of the lawrence berkeley national laboratory and to carry on other charitable and educational activities allowed by law, as determined by the board of directors.

What it reported doing in 2024

The berkeley lab foundation is operating to support the activities of the university of California, in its specific capacity as manager and operator of the lawrence berkeley national laboratory and to carry on other charitable and educational activities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 99% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 93
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 91.7%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $24.67 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

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; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -7.5%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.8; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.4%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.3% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 91.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $543K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 88 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.