The Lab Sf

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942952488
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4158648855
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$714,749
Expenses
$701,918
Assets
$375,663
Liabilities
$46,481

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NANCY MCGLAMERY (DIRECTOR AND PRESIDENT)
  • ANDREW SMITH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANDREW SMITH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $96,213 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 lab gives significant funding, time, and space to traditionally underrepresented artists. We seek to transform alongside artistic practices in order to engage meaningfully with visionary communities whose economic and cultural realities have been ignored for too long, to the impoverishment of us all. In this, the lab is catalyst for artistic experimentation.

What it reported doing in 2024

The lab supported 242 artists throughout 2024-25, across 71 programs of experimental music, film, and visual arts. Highlights of our programming included an exhibition of work by the late san francisco artist peter simensky, co-presented with san francisco-based platform cloaca projects; a residency and commission by musician zachary james watkins exploring the acoustics of the historic san francisco labor temple; and an exhibition and series of performances by artist aine nakamura, who worked to explore the connection between san francisco and her maternal family town in japan through the raw silk trade, war, and women's labor.

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 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 - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.7%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 51.6%; rating input score 52
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

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: 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.8%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.7%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.4% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.7% of revenue deployed · 51.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $362K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $96K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • 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 51/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.