Culver City Forward

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
834433775
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Culver City, CA, USA
Phone
3104419635
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,992
Expenses
$5,619
Assets
$1,070
Liabilities
$10,245

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Kelly Kent (Secretary)
  • Yolanda Gorman (Co-Chair)
  • James Limbaugh (Director)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

CCF is a nonprofit organization that will engage leading Business, Government, Charitable and other community stake holders to address important issues affecting Culver City in a fact-based, sensible and non-partisan manner.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024 Culver City Forward (CCF) had a range of ongoing programs and long-term initiatives.~ CCF continued its collaboration with the Livable Communities Initiative (LCI), a Los Angelesbased grassroots organization focused on housing and mobility reform. LCI successfully advocated for a change to Culver Citys building code, allowing apartment and mixed-use buildings to be constructed with single staircases rather than multiple staircasesenabling more efficient, affordable, and sustainable housing.~ CCF also helped initiate and participated in a Housing Field Study trip to Vienna, Austria, alongside elected officials, California State Legislators, and housing professionals. The delegation examined Viennas internationally recognized social housing model and met with officials from the Vienna City Government and Chamber of Commerce. This was the first of several subsequent field studies that have significantly influenced affordable housing policy and practice across California and beyond.~ In Los Angeles, CCF served as an organizer and partner for the VerdeXchange Conference, coordinating panels on digital twin technology and alternative modes of transportation. CCF also took part in the LA CoMotion conference, which focuses on innovation in mobility.~ CCF worked closely with the Consulate of the Netherlands and its business envoy to host delegations from Amsterdam in Culver City and Los Angeles. These collaborationswith the Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator (LACI) and the Westside Urban Forumcentered on sustainable mobility and real estate development.~ Finally, CCF and Thomas Small continued leadership roles in sustainability and civic engagement. Small serves as Vice-Chair of the Sustainability Council of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro), on the Advisory Board of the Thomas Mann House in Pacific Palisades, and on the Los Angeles Advisory Board of the Urban Land Institute.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 66
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.2%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 60%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

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: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 25th 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: 19.6%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.19; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 9.57; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -46.5% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -57.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -62.3% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.2% of revenue deployed · 60% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.