Partnership for Haas Preeminence

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
455126076
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Menlo Park, CA, USA
Phone
6508545600
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,298,368
Expenses
$70,260,263
Assets
$343,955
Liabilities
$13,741

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Warren E Spieker Jr (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Richard K Lyons (Treasurer): $229,400 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The exclusive objective and purpose of Partnership for Haas Preeminence is to fund and manage the design and implementation of the University of California, Berkeley Haas School of Business Master Space Plan, Strategic Facilities Study, which consists of three projects: (1) the installation of air conditioning in Cheit Hall classroom building and the renovation of classroom C230; (2) the replacement of the lower courtyard; and (3) construction of a new six-story academic/classroom building on the site immediately adjacent and north of the existing Haas School of Business.

What it reported doing in 2018

The expenses associated with the following project accomplishments were capitalized (Capital Project - Phase II). Upon completion, the assets were gifted to the University of California, Berkeley at book value: continuing and ongoing project management regarding development/construction of the 80,000 SF North Academic Building including interface with the UCB-Capital Projects. Achieved phased occupancy of the building commencing July 2017 with 100% occupancy achieved in October 2017. Completed construction and site work. We now have LEED Platinum certification with WELL certification pending. Have initiated the Dissolution and wind down of 501c3 entity by end of February 2019.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 45
  • Sustainability: 9
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.4%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -746.7%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 120% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -27.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -26.4% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $69.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $229K · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $1.2M reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2015 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.