Institute for Law & Policy Planning

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942598722
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2013, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Berkeley, CA, USA
Phone
5104868352
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Reported finances

Revenue
$46,058
Expenses
$43,978
Assets
$250
Liabilities
$19,085

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • ALAN S KALMANOFF (Executive Direc)
  • LINDA GUYDEN (Treasurer)
  • CANDICE WONG (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Institute for law and policy planning was incorporated for the purpose of conducting research and evaluations regarding national, state and local questions of public law and policy, and to disseminate research findings and analyses, both in connection with planning and through the development of training curricula.

What it reported doing in 2015

This entity commenced the process of winding up and dissolving. However, it was necessary to continue to keep a presence in the community and to have the wherewithal to support past projects & clients.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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 the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.3%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 83%; rating input score 83

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.5%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.01; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 76.34; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -26.5% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -73.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -87% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.3% of revenue deployed · 83% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $37K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
  • 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.

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 — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.