Civic Center Community Benefit District

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
452800348
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4156587979
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Coalitions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,019,737
Expenses
$4,091,941
Assets
$6,754,639
Liabilities
$3,188,852

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

People named in this filing

  • BILL WHITFIELD (Chairman)
  • TIM VRABEL (Treasurer)
  • JAMIE BUDGETT (BOARD MEMBER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The civic center cbd improves and promotes san francisco's historic civic center through a host of planning, policy and public programming initiatives.

What it reported doing in 2025

Cccbd provides the following programscleaning and maintenance provides essential services to supplement and compliment those provided by local government. Cccbd's supplemental maintenance support for civic center shows pride and stewardship of the district. Furthermore, addressing maintenance and general upkeep in a timely manner keeps acts of vandalism at bay creating an accessible, equitable and comfortable environment for everyone.ambassadors assist the public in navigating the district with a welcoming and informed presence. Their presence is also a deterrent to criminal activity through proactive and immediate reporting of unsafe conditions. Ambassadors also connect those in need of medical attention or social service support with the proper agencies. Ambassadors also work on select evenings near arts venues, to enhance the pedestrian experience before and after evening performances and events. An ambassador is also dedicated to the street-level entrance of the civic center garage to provide support and guidance for garage patrons.activation and beautification efforts include outdoor musical performances, public art installations, the civic center plaza holiday tree lighting, events in civic center commons and oversight of the civic center plaza cafe kioskk, decorative lighting and landscaping.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 89% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.9%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 81.9%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 14th 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: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 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: 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: -1.8%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.65; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.47; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.2% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.9% of revenue deployed · 81.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 17 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $2M reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.