California Calls Action Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
743064220
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3237359515
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,651,589
Expenses
$1,986,450
Assets
$1,775,878
Liabilities
$64,191

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ANTHONY THIGPENN (DIRECTOR): $183,200 total reported compensation
  • SABRINA SMITH (TREASURER): $173,406 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

An alliance of community based organizations to engage, educate and motivate California's electorate.

What it reported doing in 2024

An alliance of community-based organizations to engage, educate, and motivate California's electorate, ccaf works to advance key legislative and ballot measure priorities, such as proposition 5, prop 36, and measure a.- takes positions on local and state ballot measures.- makes re-grants to local partners to run get-out-the-vote programs on ballot measures, including those related to measure a.- funds staff with lead planning, training, and get-out-the-vote program operations.- produces materials such as voter guides and literature to promote the positions on those ballot measures, detailing the impacts of measures like proposition 5 and prop 36.- uses digital communications, such as emails, text messages, and social media advertising, to promote the positions on those ballot measures and mobilize voters for initiatives like measure a.- engages in direct and grassroots lobbying on legislation (phone calls, letters, delegation meetings, etc.).

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 70% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 72% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 45
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 94.7%; rating input score 95
  • 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; 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: 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: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 25.1%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.89; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.9%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.7% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71% of revenue deployed · 94.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $183K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 20 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 21 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.