Fathom Ai Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 934840479
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- San Francisco, CA, USA
- Phone
- 2026510717
- Rating
- 63
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Philanthropy, Voluntarism, and Grantmaking Foundations N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $12,128,490
- Expenses
- $5,832,833
- Assets
- $7,275,611
- Liabilities
- $979,954
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BLAKE PIERSON (CO-FOUNDER & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- ANDREW FREEDMAN (CO-FOUNDER & CHIEF STATEGY OFFICER): $162,114 total reported compensation
- BRI TREECE (CO-FOUNDER & CHIEF IMPACT OFFICER): $92,080 total reported compensation
- BLAKE PIERSON (CO-FOUNDER & CEO): $58,923 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Fathom ai's mission is to find, build and scale innovative governance solutions for ai that foster public trust in ai, while unleashing the power of american innovation.
What it reported doing in 2024
Policy and politics - this work is to craft specific policy proposals at the state, federal, and international level to ensure the development of ai benefits humanity to its fullest potential. This work builds on our research work, and involves intensive communication and media to educate and amplify our messaging across the ecosystem. We also engage in limited lobbying as permitted by state and federal rules and regulations for lobbying activities for 501(c)(3) organizations. Any work to this effect is done via a separate 501(c)(6) entity, meridian governance, inc. No lobbying was conducted in 2024.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most filed governance safeguards are in place. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 58
- Transparency & Controls: 68
- Accountability: 81
- Sustainability: 71
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 39.5%; rating input score 39
- Program expense ratio: 82%; rating input score 82
- Fundraising efficiency: $78.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 99.2%; rating input score 99; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 51.9%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.25; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.4%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 39.5% of revenue deployed · 82% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $4.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $162K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.2M reported
- Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 8 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: Mission deployment rate scored 39/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.