League of Women Voters of Greater Los Angeles

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953972988
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
2133681616
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Voter Education, Registration

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$108,868
Expenses
$186,096
Assets
$339,732
Liabilities
$42,239

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mona Field (President)
  • Laurice Sommers (Second Vice President)
  • Ninochka McTaggart PhD (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Ninochka McTaggart PhD (Executive Director): $72,560 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The League of Women Voters, a non-partisan political organization, encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2023

The LWVGLA was formed for the purpose of building informed participation in the democratic process, the key to strengthening our civil society. Using League guides and principles to public dialogue, we enable people to seek positive solutions to public policy issues through education. Our best practices for public dialogue ensure the public is informed and connected; involve residents in important policy decisions; generate new solutions to community problems; and involve new people in the process. The unique decentralized grassroots structure of our largely volunteer-run organization provides the people power to work on all levels of government (national, state, city, county).

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

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: 17
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 12.6%; rating input score 13
  • Program expense ratio: 7.9%; rating input score 8
  • Fundraising efficiency: $30.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -70.9%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.83; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 39%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -15.2% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 12.6% of revenue deployed · 7.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $15K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $73K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 13/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.