Jack London Improvement District
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 463875634
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Oakland, CA, USA
- Phone
- 5102670858
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Neighborhood, Block Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,452,902
- Expenses
- $1,560,955
- Assets
- $845,610
- Liabilities
- $125,212
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- LISA VILLHAUER (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- SAVLAN HAUSER (EXECUTIVE DI): $160,972 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our mission is to create, promote and maintain an inviting environment for people who visit, live or work in the jack london district, and build an inclusive and resilient commercial community... (see schedule o)
What it reported doing in 2025
Advocacy & governance: through active community engagement, the district provides a voice to promote the interests of jack london through a diverse range of platforms and participation in long-range projects. The district represents its stakeholders regarding pertinent policy implementation, development efforts, and issues that impact connectivity, economic development and quality-of-life in the district. Current efforts include responsiveness to homelessness, real estate development, land-use and transportation planning, resiliency, improvements to safe and accessible pedestrian, bike, public transit, and automobile mobility, as well as coordination with partner organizations such as oakland bid alliance, chamber of commerce, and agencies: port of oakland, amtrak, weta & caltrans
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 93% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 74
- Sustainability: 23
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 95.2%; rating input score 95
- Program expense ratio: 88.6%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- 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: Limited
- 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: -7.4%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.3%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.6% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 95.2% of revenue deployed · 88.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $161K · 12 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $839K reported
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and 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.
- 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.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.