Institute for Local Government

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
941537757
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9166588208
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Government and Public Administration

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,080,657
Expenses
$2,057,643
Assets
$3,601,510
Liabilities
$202,600

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ERICA MANUEL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • KARALEE BROWN (ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ERICA MANUEL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $255,238 total reported compensation
  • KARALEE BROWN (ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $144,503 total reported compensation
  • MELISSA KUEHNE (DIRECTOR OF ENTERPRISE PROGRAMS): $141,619 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 institute for local government (ilg) is committed to empowering and educating public servants by delivering real-world expertise that helps them navigate complex issues, increases their capacity and builds trust in their communities. Together, we work with local agency staff and elected officials to build a strong foundation of good government at the local level. Our work is guided by our core values of collaboration, service, commitment, equity, inclusion, and trust.

What it reported doing in 2024

Public engagement: inclusive public engagement is a cornerstone of ilg's work and expertise. Ilg uses a tailored, responsive, and customized approach to help cities, counties, and special districts plan, execute, and evaluate authentic public engagement efforts. Ilg helps local agencies engage with diverse, under-represented, or disengaged populations, while also helping reach out to and partner with community-based organizations to inform, design, and implement, customized public engagement processes that tackle a wide range of pressing local issues. This important work helps build the capacity of California local governments to advance equity and public engagement in their communities through peer learning and collaboration, training, coaching, technical assistance, and facilitation. Ilg's public engagement services include workshops, customized public engagement trainings, strategic planning and consultation, meeting and committee facilitation and convenings and stakeholder engagement.

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 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 - The filed numbers largely add up 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.5%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 61.7%; rating input score 62
  • 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: 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.1%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.75; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32.3%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.5% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.5% of revenue deployed · 61.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $255K · 27 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.