Greater Sacramento Urban League

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
941686314
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9162868600
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,203,485
Expenses
$5,427,620
Assets
$6,562,742
Liabilities
$803,183

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DWAYNE CRENSHAW (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • DWAYNE CRENSHAW (CEO): $203,113 total reported compensation
  • KENNETH GREER (CFO (THRU 12/2023)): $123,797 total reported compensation
  • LAURA MURRELL (VP OF COMMUNICATIONS/PUBLIC AFFAIRS): $120,604 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Greater sacramento urban league's (gsul) mission is to empower black and other historically marginalized people throughout the region in securing economic self-reliance, educational fulfillment, social justice, and civil rights while living well, being well, and thriving.

What it reported doing in 2023

Health and quality of life: over the past year, the health and quality of life (hql) team has committed to fostering a healthier, more equitable greater sacramento community. From monthly community health clinics that offer free and accessible screenings to our trusted messenger program that bridges critical information gaps, we have focused on building strong, health-conscious neighborhoods. Cut to the chase, cal mhsa, and allcove are programs within the

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.2%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 76.9%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $288.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 16th 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: 35.6%; rating input score 36; 14th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.3%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.21; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.2%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.6% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.2% of revenue deployed · 76.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $203K · 23 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $448K reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 36/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.