Solidarity Research Center
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 472130723
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2021
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Phone
- 3235397654
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $511,630
- Expenses
- $368,763
- Assets
- $193,052
- Liabilities
- $17,000
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Joshua Dedmond (Vice President)
- Rev Osagyefo Uhuru Sekou (President)
People named in this filing
- Ruth Wilson Gilmore (Director)
- Andrew Curley (Secretary)
- Casimiro Pena (Treasurer)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
1 To conduct applied social science research on solidarity economies for the public interest 2 to cultivate direct democracy and social inclusion in workplaces, households, and neighborhoods by i growing and expanding worker owned cooperatives ii promoting and establishing land trusts and affordable housing iii facilitating participatory budgeting and neighborhood assemblies 3 to partner with worker centers and community-based organizations to develop solidarity economies.
What it reported doing in 2024
Solidarity Research Center advanced its mission in 2024 by publishing articles, reports, consulting projects, and by hosting panel discussions both online and in person. Our five online webinars were attended by over 1,500 people combined on the topics of community defense, base building, and municipalism. SRC published Building Power in Place: A Municipalist Organizing Toolkit which presents a snapshot of the theory and practice of various place-based movements we describe as radical municipalist.
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 96% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 59
- Transparency & Controls: 84
- Accountability: 88
- Sustainability: 61
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 55.1%; rating input score 55
- Program expense ratio: 76.4%; rating input score 76
- Fundraising efficiency: $7.96 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
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: 80.2%; rating input score 80; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- 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 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 27.9%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.52; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 64% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 90.6% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 55.1% of revenue deployed · 76.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $282K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.