Hollywood Media District Property Owners Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954779871
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3233717438
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Environmental Beautification and Aesthetics

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,568,636
Expenses
$1,422,837
Assets
$101,965
Liabilities
$17,596

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANITA SARAKI (President)
  • JEFFREY LUSTER (Vice President)
  • THOR LEE (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • DIANNA EISENBERG (Executive Dir.): $169,743 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Led by a 23-member board representing a cross-section of district stakeholders, the purpose of the hollywood media district bid is to provide enhanced services designed to augment, not replace, those provided by the city of los angeles, including: security, street cleaning, maintenance and graffiti removal, streetscape improvements, marketing and promotional services and community outreach.

What it reported doing in 2025

Clean, safe and beautiful program: the hollywood media bids safety program provided biclycle, foot, and vehicle patrols throughout the district to deter, observe, and report illegal and nuisance activities, including vandalism, graffiti, drug activity, trespassing, public drinking, and illegal dumping. The uniformed safety team conducted business checks, provided pedestrian and visitor assistance, supported merchants and property occupants, conducted homeless outreach, and coordinated with the los angeles police department and other city partners. The program supplemented, but did not replace, public law enforcement and other security services. These activities maintained a visible safety presence throughout the district and supported a safer and more welcoming environment for businesses, employees, residents, visitors, and customers.the hollywood media bids clean and beautiful program provided ongoing sanitation, graffiti removal, sidewalk maintenance, trash collection, tree trimming, landscaping, and beautification services throughout the district. Uniformed clean team personnel swept sidewalks and gutters, removed litter, debris, refuse, handbills, and unauthorized postings, pressure washed sidewalks, serviced public trash receptacles, and removed graffiti through painting, solvents, and pressure washing. The program maintained a zero-tolarance approach to graffiti, with efforts to remove graffiti tags within 24 hours on weekdays. Tree trimming, landscape maintenance, and beautification projects were also conducted to improve the appearance, cleanliness, safety, and usability of the dsitrict. These activities supported a clean, attractive, and welcoming environment for businesses, employees, residents, visitors, and customers and contributed to increased pedestrian and commercial activity throughout the district.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.2%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 91.9%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.3%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.07; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.9%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.2% of revenue deployed · 91.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $170K · 24 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $860K reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.