Common Sense California Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
542183459
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Malibu, CA, USA
Phone
3105068054
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$0
Expenses
$10,628
Assets
$20,489
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

People named in this filing

  • DAVID WOLF (Director)
  • PETER PETERSON (Executive Dir)

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 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

California Common Sense is a

What it reported doing in 2013

In 2013, commmon sense California supported some of the davenport institute's (at pepperdine university) efforts to promote greater public engagement at the local governmetn level through training and consulting. In particular, csc helped support travel expenses and conference sponshorships in the area of participatory governance. The organization is winding down its operation in 2014.

Operating model

Revenue model
No positive adjusted resources. The filing reports no positive adjusted operating resources.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: 75.5%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: Limited
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.93; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -110.2% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -70% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 2 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.