California Budget & Policy Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680346784
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sacramento, CA, US
Phone
(916) 444-0500
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,833,834
Expenses
$5,610,865
Assets
$7,990,499
Liabilities
$914,813

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRISTOPHER HOENE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTOPHER HOENE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $273,646 total reported compensation
  • SCOTT GRAVES (DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH): $214,558 total reported compensation
  • ALISSA ANDERSON (SENIOR POLICY ANALYST): $194,313 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The California Budget & Policy Center is a nonpartisan research and analysis nonprofit that examines budget and policy choices to advance public policies that expand opportunity and promote well-being for all Californians.

What it reported doing in 2024

The budget center also engages with organizations across the state by participating in speaking engagements, serving on boards and committees, and providing technical assistance. Our staff served on 33 boards or committees at any given time throughout the year, participated in 108 speaking engagements, and fulfilled 351 technical assistance requests from state and local organizations and policymakers and their staff. These engagement opportunities help maximize our impact to improve policy for all californians.the budget center hosted 16 virtual events in 2024 with 4,369 registrants and one in-person event with 355 registrants.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 93
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.5%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 84.8%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $121.62 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -16.1%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.42; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.9%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.3% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.7% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 98.5% of revenue deployed · 84.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $274K · 21 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $246K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.