Power California
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 770651682
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Phone
- 5106983828
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Nonprofit Management
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,123,348
- Expenses
- $6,257,295
- Assets
- $9,371,809
- Liabilities
- $627,912
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- LUIS SANCHEZ (PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- LUIS SANCHEZ (PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $208,980 total reported compensation
- PRINCESS BELL (SENIOR ASSOICIATE DIRECTOR): $177,352 total reported compensation
- ALICIA OLIVAREZ (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR): $157,455 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Power California harnesses the energy of young voters of color and their families to create a state that is equitable, inclusive and just for everyone who calls California home.
What it reported doing in 2024
See schedule oalliance: powerca, together with our statewide alliance of 15 youth-organizing partners, mobilizes over 100,000 young voters annually on an ongoing basis to encourage civic engagement throughout the year through our get out the vote efforts. Powerca's alliance of youth-organizing partners has played a crucial role in mobilizing young voters of color. By working together and uniting under one alliance, we have amplified the strength of individual organizations and expanded a statewide base of young voters. By refining our integrated voter engagement strategies, we have strengthened the civic engagement infrastructure across California, especially in underserved regions like the central valley, inland empire and the central coast.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 70% for direct work, and 30% for grants.
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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 88
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 92.2%; rating input score 92
- Program expense ratio: 73.9%; rating input score 74
- Fundraising efficiency: $11.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 99.9%; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 14th 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: -22.1%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.5; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 15.2%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 14.8% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 22.6% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 92.2% of revenue deployed · 73.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $4.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $209K · 11 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $389K reported
- Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 35 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 29 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.