Los Angeles Parks Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
262358338
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3104721990
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,070,489
Expenses
$2,470,800
Assets
$5,711,308
Liabilities
$113,940

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANTHONY G BUDROVICH (PRESIDENT, SECRETARY)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANTHONY G BUDROVICH (PRESIDENT, SECRETARY): $240,050 total reported compensation
  • Corazon Rios (secretary): $54,717 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To enhance, expand, preserve and promote public recreation, parks and open space for the diverse people of los angeles.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Los Angeles Parks Foundation's Special Projects Program funds are used to support a range of activities ranging from the design and implementation of major capital improvements, such as new multi-sport playing fields or playgrounds, to recreational programming. In 2024, construction of the Watts Skate Park was completed with support from The Skateboard Project, and a park forest was planted with support by Wells Fargo Bank at the Hansen Dam Recreation Center. Such funds are also used in support of citywide and special initiatives of the City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks. The Foundation serves as a fiscal and administrative partner for funders such as Nike, ESPN, and other corporate or philanthropic institutions that invest in recreation programs including PlayLA, Girls Play LA, and CoachLA. Grants from the Griffith J. Griffith Charitable Trust were used to support the Hollywoodland Girls and Boys Camps, and funds from GPSN and other institutional donors were also used to support summer programming offered in City of Los Angeles parks. The Foundation ensures such funds are stewarded in accordance with donor intent and City partnership requirements and that all compliance and reporting responsibilities are fulfilled.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 86% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.1%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 72.2%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.3%; rating input score 96; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.5%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.31; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.9%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.1% of revenue deployed · 72.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $240K · 16 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.