Local Progress Policy Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
863590543
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2028105723
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,586,323
Expenses
$6,156,795
Assets
$10,806,410
Liabilities
$298,892

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • IVAN LUEVANOS-ELMS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • IVAN LUEVANOS-ELMS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $219,761 total reported compensation
  • FRANESCA MENES (MANAGING DIRECTOR, MEMBERSHIP & ORGANIZING): $179,382 total reported compensation
  • IIMAY HO (MANAGING DIRECTOR, PEOPLE & OPERATIONS): $179,355 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Local progress impact lab brings together local leaders, partners, and experts to build the knowledge, skills, and leadership needed to advance racial and economic justice at the local level.

What it reported doing in 2024

Local progress impact lab brings together local leaders, partners, and experts to build the knowledge, skills, and leadership needed to advance racial and economic justice at the local level. We do this through providing policy support on issues and bringing our members together through state chapters, issue steering committees, identity caucuses, and a national convening. In addition, we jointly host the progressive governance academy program with re: power and the state innovative exchange. The progressive governance academy helps progressive state and local elected officials develop the leadership and governance skills they need to be powerful and effective leaders.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 64% for direct work, and 36% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.2%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 80.4%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $39.45 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 10th 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: 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 35.8%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.76; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.9%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 52.1% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 35.2% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 42.3% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52.2% of revenue deployed · 80.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $220K · 11 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $230K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.