Common Field

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821554793
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
8477695898
Rating
43
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Visual Arts Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,803
Expenses
$36,106
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • SHEETAL PRAJAPATI (EXEC. DIRECTOR): $15,500 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Common field connects, supports and advocates for the artist-centered field by providing a network for independent arts organizations and organizers.

What it reported doing in 2023

Common field dissolved the organization during the 2nd quarter of 2023.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

MIXED - 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 4
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1,188.1%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 42.9%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.5% per year; rating input score 0; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.9% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $16K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.