California Humanities

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942952469
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
4153911474
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Humanities Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,414,639
Expenses
$3,444,896
Assets
$1,943,658
Liabilities
$1,104,084

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RICK NOGUCHI (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • RICK NOGUCHI (PRESIDENT & CEO): $179,496 total reported compensation
  • FELICIA KELLEY (DIRECTOR OF PROJECT & EVAL): $130,577 total reported compensation
  • JOHN LIGHTFOOT (DIRECTOR OF MEDIA/JOURNALI): $128,389 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

California humanities was founded in 1975 with a defined mission to connect californians to ideas and one another in order to understand our shared heritage and diverse cultures, inspire civic participation, and shape our future.

What it reported doing in 2024

Humanities for all is a grant program that supports locally-initiated public humanities projects that respond to the needs and interests of californians, encourage greater public participation in humanities programming, particularly by new and/or underserved audiences, and promotes understanding and empathy among all our state's peoples in order to cultivate a thriving democracy. Quick grants (between $1,000 and $5,000) are awarded three times a year for small-scale public humanities activities and projects that will take place within a one-year period from the award date. Project grants ($10,000 to $20,000) are awarded twice a year for larger public humanities projects of up to two-years duration from the award date.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 96% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 44% for direct work, and 56% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.9%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 55.1%; rating input score 55
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.27 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th 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: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 81%; rating input score 81; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.9%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.56; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.57; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.5%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.9% of revenue deployed · 55.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $179K · 20 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $344K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 46 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 41 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.