California Urban Partnership

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
450842476
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9162428313
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$205,682
Expenses
$166,009
Assets
$195,648
Liabilities
$120,394

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Malaki Amen (President & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Malaki Amen (President & CEO): $82,000 total reported compensation
  • Latasha Johnson (CFO): $12,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The California Urban Partnership's (CUP) mission is to build economic security in communities of color through policy research, education and organizing community action. We advocate for systems changes that increase investments to improve the health and wealth of California's most marginalized people and places.

What it reported doing in 2025

The CUP served as a member organization in the California Jobs First, Sacramento Region planning phase and actively contributed to the High Roads Transition Collaborative by helping shape the regional Economic Plan focused on quality job creation, economic resilience, equity, and long-term sustainability. We participated in governance development, regional planning activities, stakeholder engagement, surveys, committee work, and strategic coordination with Valley Vision and Collaborative partners. CUP also supported key initiatives related to data and research, capacity building, community engagement, and sector-based economic strategies while identifying opportunities to align regional efforts with American Rescue Plan, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and other public and private funding resources. A major achievement included advancing equitable participation by ensuring under-resourced stakeholders had meaningful access to the planning process, influence over regional priorities, and pathways to benefit from future investments.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 90% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 44
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.4%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 77.3%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.3%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.18; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.62; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 56.6%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.5% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -12.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -12.1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62.4% of revenue deployed · 77.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $128K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $82K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.