Firehouse Projects

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
922279114
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
9712957099
Rating
41
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts, Culture, and Humanities N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$253,078
Expenses
$357,115
Assets
$4,675
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Zachery Sanders (Director): $128,333 total reported compensation
  • Natasha Harden (Office Manager): $54,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Firehouse Projects primarily provides free to low cost space for arts edcuation and culture in Oakland and the surrounding Bay Area. It has also provided groups and organizations with office space supplies and materials necessary for those events.

What it reported doing in 2024

Program Service Accomplishments: Firehouse Projects provides free or low-cost space dedicated to arts education and cultural programming in Oakland and the surrounding Bay Area. This program supports local organizations community groups and artists by offering affordable access to facilities office space and essential supplies and materials needed for events and activities. By reducing barriers to physical space Firehouse Projects enables a diverse range of historically marginalized groups to host events workshops and cultural initiatives that might otherwise be unaffordable due to rising property costs in the region. This program is critical in counteracting the displacement of community spaces in Oakland fostering inclusivity and supporting cultural resilience across the Bay Area.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 55
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -41.1%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.01; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 51.1%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -183.5% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $128K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 40 current checks pass · 8 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesManagement column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherEmployeeBenefits column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.