CRG Foundation
Legal name: CRG Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 824875279
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Aug 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2019
- Location
- Santa Monica, CA, USA
- Phone
- (310) 471-8181
- Rating
- 88
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $463,386
- Expenses
- $562,616
- Assets
- $844,175
- Liabilities
- $319,679
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Mark S Adams (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- Erica Connelly (Director): $28,362 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 CRG Foundation's mission is to eliminate blight and restore communities through the powerful remedy of health and safety receivership.
What it reported doing in 2024
In 2024, the organization continued to expand its receivership program, increasing the number of properties under receivership in Tennessee and conducting outreach to establish a receivership program in Dallas, Texas, and to develop a receivership program in Virginia. The organization maintained its ongoing work with the Vacant Property Receivership Consortium in conjunction with academics, other nonprofits, and contacts in Tennessee, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C., to increase knowledge and use of health and safety receivership nationwide. Key accomplishments included the establishment of a Community of Practice comprising more than 100 receivership professionals, with monthly communications and quarterly meetings to facilitate knowledge sharing and collaboration. Additionally, the organization presented the receivership remedy at a national conference with approximately 1,000 attendees to further expand receivership outreach and awareness. These efforts continued to promote receivership as an effective community revitalization tool and strengthened the organization's national network of receivership advocates and practitioners.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 98
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 76
- Sustainability: 27
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 95.6%; rating input score 96
- Fundraising efficiency: $399.12 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 80%; rating input score 80; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -21.4%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.5; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.38; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 35.3% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 28.5% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 23.3% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 95.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $538K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $28K · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.