The Hollywood Partnership

Legal name: Hollywood Property Owners Alliance Dba the Hollywood Partnership

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954606651
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Hollywood, CA, US
Phone
323-463-6767
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,682,158
Expenses
$8,708,671
Assets
$1,592,746
Liabilities
$439,111

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KATHLEEN RAWSON (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • KATHLEEN RAWSON (CEO): $414,065 total reported compensation
  • MACKENZIE A CARTER (VP MARKETING & COMMUNICATION): $186,382 total reported compensation
  • ANGELA LA RIVA (VP OPERATIONS): $173,801 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Hollywood Partnership's mission is to enhance the Hollywood Entertainment District through place management, place enhancement, stakeholder engagement, and advocacy and economic development, ensuring a clean, safe, and vibrant environment for all.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organizations public safety and security activities are intended to specifically benefit the property owners who fund the business improvement district. The organization funds unarmed security ambassadors to patrol the district. The security services provide unarmed ambassadors and dispatch center for 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. They also collaborate with lapd, private security companies, and other city services to improve the overall perception and reality of safety in hollywood. Other public safety programs include homeless outreach efforts and support of local homeless services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 and most voting board members are independent. 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: 82
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 60

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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 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: -0.3%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.5%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $414K · 26 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $6.2M reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.