Streets Are for Everyone

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
473036490
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
8448847233
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$406,388
Expenses
$396,681
Assets
$154,615
Liabilities
$4,786

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK KEVITT (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAYNA GALBREATH (Secretary): $40,483 total reported compensation
  • DAMIAN KEVITT (Executive Dir.): $27,375 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Streets Are For Everyone (SAFE) aims to improve the quality of life for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers alike by reducing traffic fatalities to zero. SAFE addresses the problem in a holistic fashion through direct education, broad awareness campaigns, partnerships, community outreach, policy and legislation, support for those impacted, and other proven strategies.

What it reported doing in 2024

SAFE Legislation & Advocacy Programs: This past legislative session, the policy and legislation team at Streets Are For Everyone was tracking 99 bills, 15 of which we ultimately supported or opposed. Seven of the bills SAFE supported were signed into law, including our top priority bill, SB 1297, which implemented a speed-camera pilot program in Malibu. 2024 saw a record number of advocacy projects happening across LA County and beyond. This included 18 projects initiated by SAFE or by volunteer advocates who want to see safer roads in the communities where they live, work, or play. There were 11 additional outreach and engagement projects executed at the request of local government agencies, including the LA County Department of Public Works, LA Metro, and LA Department of Transportation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 71% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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

MIXED - Program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 35
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.2%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 59.7%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.4%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.39; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.1%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25.5% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 40.8% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.2% of revenue deployed · 59.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 0 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $237K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $40K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.