Pico Union Project
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 812010806
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Studio City, CA, USA
- Phone
- 8182095824
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community, Neighborhood Development
- Affiliation
- Judaism
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,048,535
- Expenses
- $941,885
- Assets
- $534,166
- Liabilities
- $9,499
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- CRAIG TAUBMAN (FOUNDER): $77,706 total reported compensation
- LOUISE TAUBMAN (TREASURER): $43,200 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The organization views its mission as dedicated to the jewish principle to "love your neighbor as yourself." the company elevates this teaching into practice in an historic building by bringing diverse cultures together through song, story, art, food, and prayer. During the pandemic the pico union area became one of the largest epicenters in los angeles. The pico union project became a distribution site twice a week distributing fresh fruit and vegetables, ppe supplies, books, art supplies and other household items to ensure the community can stay safe and healthy. The pico union has continued this effort through today.
What it reported doing in 2024
Pico union project has provided a location for the religious worship of several faiths, performing arts, and community activities. As a result, neighborhood tensions and prejudices have been reduced. A dialogue has been started amongst interfaith groups, as well as many cultural & diverse ethnicities.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 64
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 48
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 68.6%; rating input score 69
- Program expense ratio: 75.6%; rating input score 76
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
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: 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: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 10.2%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.57; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 12.8%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 68.6% of revenue deployed · 75.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $712K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $78K · 8 people listed
- Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.