The Connie Rice Institute for Urban Peace

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364816075
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
2134040124
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Delinquency Prevention

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,539,904
Expenses
$8,897,684
Assets
$10,953,135
Liabilities
$2,716,158

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • FERNANDO REJON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • FERNANDO REJON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $180,211 total reported compensation
  • ERIC LAM (SR DIR OF PROGRAMS & STRATEGY): $140,692 total reported compensation
  • TIMOTHY SHUGRUE (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE & OPERATIONS): $134,013 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Urban peace institute reduces and prevents community violence by applying a public health approach to understand the underlying reasons for violence and create innovative, holistic ways to change the conditions that lead to them. (continued on schedule o)we provide technical assistance and training to communities throughout California and across the country, supporting safety efforts to ensure that children can learn, families can thrive, and communities can prosper.

What it reported doing in 2024

Training and regional support provides education and technical assistance through the urban peace academy to residents, peacemakers, community practitioners, and public-sector partners on public healthbased approaches to violence reduction. Training curricula emphasize effective community engagement, mediation and conflict resolution, professional standards, trauma-informed practices, worker wellness, and culturally grounded strategies that support safe and effective community violence intervention (cvi) work.through this program, the organization has trained thousands of individuals nationwide and provided regional support to communities seeking to strengthen local cvi (continued on schedule o) infrastructure. In addition, the organization delivers technical assistance to community-based organizations and multi-sector partners to support the development, implementation, and sustainability of violence intervention strategies.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 49% for direct work, and 51% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.4%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 79.5%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 29%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.23; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 56.1% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 53.1% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 57.7% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.4% of revenue deployed · 79.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $7.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $180K · 16 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 23 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 17 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.