Flax

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205261978
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3107953529
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Cultural, Ethnic Awareness

Reported finances

Revenue
$42,154
Expenses
$64,437
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELISABETH FORNEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • LIONEL SAUVAGE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARK S TINGLOF (TREASURER): $6,000 total reported compensation
  • ELISABETH FORNEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $5,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote and develop franco-american relationships and understanding in southern California and possibly the american southwest by sponsoring educational events in the areas of culture, science and linguistic studies and by promoting cultural exchanges between america and france.

What it reported doing in 2020

Fahrenheit residencies are offered to artists, curators and writers lasting between one and three months in length. Residents are asked to develop a unique project during their stay. They are provided with housing, workspace and funding for their research and production leading to an exhibition, forum or publication relating to their work developed during their residence. All residencies include a public outreach component with the resident creating lectures, events or presentations with a focus on underserved los angeles communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 69.2%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $42.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 51.1%; rating input score 51; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -52.9%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.1%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.3% per year; rating input score 0; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -11.7% per year; rating input score 0; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -26.7% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 69.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $45K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $6K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2013 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 51/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.