Progressives for Democracy in America

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
842083342
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
8187499497
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,332,752
Expenses
$5,162,732
Assets
$170,244
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Alan Minsky (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Alan Minsky (Executive Director): $57,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Progressives for Democracy in America exists to increase participation in Americas democracy both by getting more people prepared to vote and by having its members follow the creation of laws and public policy by their elected representatives.

What it reported doing in 2024

This was an extensive public education campaign done in coordination with our longtime partners Food and Water Watch with whom we have often lobbied alongside on environmental issues calling upon Governor Newsom and California authorities to shut down the Aliso Canyon underground storage facility. This facility had been the site of one of the largest methane gas leaks in recorded history in late 2015. In late 2024 a deadline approached for a decision to ve made about the futiure of the facility.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 99% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 45
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 98.1%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.2%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.03; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.1%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 110.2% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 44.2% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95% of revenue deployed · 98.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $5.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $57K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 40 of 40 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.