Center for Architecture and Design

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202434734
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2021
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4158742625
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts Education

Reported finances

Revenue
$228,480
Expenses
$330,454
Assets
$206,809
Liabilities
$58,045

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STACY WILLIAMS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • STACY WILLIAMS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $190,177 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 center for architecture and design is dedicated to creating a public-focused dialogue on architecture, design, and the built environment in the san francisco bay area. Established in 2005, the center enhances public appreciation for architecture and design through exhibitions, lectures, tours, film series, and other programs.

What it reported doing in 2024

Architecture and the city festivalthe center for architecture + design celebrated the 21st annual architecture + the city festival, marking the one-year anniversary of the center's opening in downtown san francisco. The month-long festival featured over 30 programs, including behind-the-scenes tours, book talks, film screenings, exhibitions, and community events, inviting the public to experience architecture and design throughout the city. The festival opened with design + the city, a special exhibition curated by kit hinrichs, showcasing limited-edition works by leading bay area designers and artists. The opening night soire brought together local creators, design enthusiasts, and supporters for an evening of art, food, music, and celebration.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 55% for direct work, and 45% for grants.

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.3%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 61.8%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 80th 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: Fail
    • 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: -44.6%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.63; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.8%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.4% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -74.3% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -70.9% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.3% of revenue deployed · 61.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $204K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $190K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.