Common Future

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201544255
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, US
Phone
510-587-9417
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,785,475
Expenses
$8,013,919
Assets
$17,404,567
Liabilities
$484,732

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JENNIFER NJUGUNA (CO-CEO)
  • SANDHYA NAKHASI (CO-CEO)
  • JESSICA FEINGOLD (CO-CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JESSICA FEINGOLD (CO-CEO): $230,036 total reported compensation
  • SANDHYA NAKHASI (CO-CEO): $222,722 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER NJUGUNA (CO-CEO): $218,333 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We believe an equitable economy is not only possible, but the ideas and solutions that will help us get there already exist. We break down barriers to systemic change and invest in those solutions to help make them mainstream.

What it reported doing in 2024

Leadership and field building by bringing together fellows, funders, and other key players in the economy, common future has built a unique network that is poised to learn together; forge new collaborations; provide real financial opportunities through grantmaking and capital products; and elevate this work to mainstream actors in philanthropy, investing, and policy to influence economic systems.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 88% 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: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 68.3%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -38.5%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.17; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.5%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 68.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $5.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $230K · 11 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $342K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 24 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 18 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.