California Partnership to End Domestic Violence

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770347420
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9164447163
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Intergroup, Race Relations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,655,897
Expenses
$3,286,939
Assets
$1,228,438
Liabilities
$283,816

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KAREN KAUR (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LISA SICA (SENIOR DIREC): $188,988 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER KHALIFA (SENIOR DIREC): $173,607 total reported compensation
  • KRISTA COLON (EXECUTIVE DI): $170,518 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 organization's mission is to promote the collective voice of a diverse coalition of organizations and individuals working to eliminate all forms of domestic violence. As an advocate for sociate change, we advance our mission by prioritizing prevention strategies.

What it reported doing in 2024

Advance public policy solutions: pass strong legislation addressing the needs of survivors, families and communities. Work with state offices and other multi-disciplinary bodies to ensure policies are implemented and institutional responses are effective in promoting victim safety and appropriate responses to those who commit abuse. -advocated for stage prevention funding and legislation to address survivors' needs. -work with state agencies to implement funding for prevention programming. -tracked and advocated for over 40 pieces of legislation. -convened monthly webinars with member organizations, hosted topic-specific listening sessions, and hosted webinars to educate. Communicate priorities: ensure accurage and responsible reporting with news analyses and media advocacy. Promote healthy relationships and shift social norms about root causes of domestic violence. -issued multiple press releases, advisories and media statements. -led statewide campaigns promoting domestic violence awareness month and teen dating violence. -conducted public education about strategic policy areas via traditional and social media. -provided communications technical assistance. Strengthen capacity: lead network of advocates organizing for common solutions with related social justice movements, provide tools, training and resources to ensure statewide system effectively attend to the evolving needs of survivors and families, mobilized communities to prevent and respond to domestic violence with innovative approaches. -hosted annual membership meeting and facilitated regional convenings. -trained professionals attending state domestic violence conference. -conducted regional trainings and webinars on domestic violence-related topics. -coordinated regional trainings on various relevant service delivery topics reporting for advocates. -provided technical assistance to individuals contacting help desk. -supported member professional development and listservs and peer learning cirles.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 69% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 84% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.5%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 59.4%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $66.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.6%; rating input score 99; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 24th 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -23.8%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32.5%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.5% of revenue deployed · 59.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $189K · 18 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $697K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.