Long Beach Economic Partnership

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
275334557
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
Phone
5702428421
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$610,743
Expenses
$757,797
Assets
$210,607
Liabilities
$71,849

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

People named in this filing

  • RYAN ALTOON (CHAIR)
  • RANDAL HERNANDEZ (VICE CHAIR)
  • ALICIA BERHOW (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. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Lbep's mission is to build economic prosperity through partnerships with both private and public entities, to create and accelerate growth opportunities for individuals, businesses, and the city at large. Lbep promotes, encourages and enhances the creation of jobs in the city of long beach, California through projects that assist in the retention of existing businesses/industries, the attraction of new businesses/industries and by aiding their development and growth.

What it reported doing in 2024

Lbep led the "launch beach coalition" which is a working group made up of key stakeholders in the service of attracting tech startups to long beach. In addition, the group seeks to create an environment within the city that fosters startup growth and investment. The stakeholders include lbep, sunstone, long beach accelerator, imprint ventures, csulb center for entrepreneurship and innovation and the city of long beach economic development department. The coalition members are provided funding of $25,000 from sunstone. Together the coalition has held regular meetings to determine the following: establishment of a work space environment, curating of speakers and experts in the tech startup space, venture captial attraction, introductions and investment, hosting of panel discussions, meetups and other opportunities to provide startup engagement and interaction. As part of this effort, some of the coalition members worked directly with the city's economic development department to identify funding opportunities to expand on the work of the coalition. The group also held regular meetings and opportunities for the wider public to meet and learn more about the coalition and join the collaboration. Lbep hosted information about the coalition on its website and provided an intake form which generated contacts interested in learning more, which were then provided to the group.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 64% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.7%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 49.7%; rating input score 50
  • Fundraising efficiency: $33.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 80%; rating input score 80; 34th 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -24.1%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.28; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.7% of revenue deployed · 49.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $377K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 26 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $204K reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.