The Center in Hollywood
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 203022534
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Phone
- 3233783225
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Service Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $7,216,103
- Expenses
- $4,895,855
- Assets
- $6,398,598
- Liabilities
- $2,334,566
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ALEX SATO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- ALEX SATO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $202,107 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 center provides a place of community to end isolation, build relationships, and introduce housing, health and wellness services to adult individuals experiencing homelessness in hollywood. It contracts with public and non-profit grant makers to provide services in line with the city and county plans to end chronic homelessness in los angeles.
What it reported doing in 2024
Housing and outreach: the center in hollywood provides street-based outreach and housing services tailored to the unique needs of the hollywood and surrounding communities. During the reporting period, the center administered three main housing and case management contracts: a) intensive case management services (icms), funded by the los angeles county department of health services. The center's icms program provides comprehensive, ongoing case management support for individuals with complex medical and behavioral health needs. Case managers assist participants with goals encompassing access to interim housing and benefits, applying for housing subsidy vouchers, maintaining housing, and navigating service systems such as healthcare, re-entry, education, and employment. During the reporting period, the (continued on sch. O) icms team carried a caseload of 210 field-based clients and 60 residents at lake house, a permanent supportive housing building located in the macarthur park neighborhood of los angeles. B) street-based engagement team (e6), funded by the los angeles county department of health services. The center's e6 team engages and provides case management services to individuals experiencing homelessness on the streets in hollywood. Pulling together expertise from a generalist case manager, peer case manager, substance use specialist, mental health clinician, and a physician assistant from saban community clinic (fqhc), the team works to develop trusting relationships with participants using an individualized, person-centered approach. The team focuses on identifying the most vulnerable participants who cannot access services elsewhere.e6 staff "meets people where they are at and collaborate with external service partners, such as interim housing and healthcare, to navigate participants through the larger scope of services in hollywood and into housing. During the reporting period, the team engaged 600 individuals and provided over 2,500 services. C) coordinated entry system coordination (ces), funded by the los angeles homelessness services authority. The coordinated entry system (ces) program at the center serves as a regional resource hub for homeless service providers in the hollywood and midtown "hubs" of service planning area (spa) 4. The program provides guidance and information about the housing process, local resources, and access to programs for community partners, including non-profits, city agencies, hospitals and healthcare providers, volunteer and mutual aid groups, and other community organizations. During the reporting period, ces coordination connected 300 unhoused individuals to critical services by collaborating with more than 300 service providers to quickly and effectively share resources and problem-solve across sectors.
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 99% 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: 56
- Transparency & Controls: 87
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 64
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 46.7%; rating input score 47
- Program expense ratio: 68.8%; rating input score 69
- Fundraising efficiency: $19.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 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: 32.2%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.31; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 18.6% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 20.5% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 46.7% of revenue deployed · 68.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $202K · 12 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $165K reported
- Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 59/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.