The Leadership Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
933648500
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
West Hollywood, CA, USA
Phone
2029684512
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Adult, Continuing Education

Reported finances

Revenue
$42,430,495
Expenses
$35,251,819
Assets
$7,579,539
Liabilities
$275,863

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CAROLYN YASHARI BECHER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1/24 - 9/24)
  • THEODORE LECOMPTE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 9/24 - 12/24)

Highest reported compensation

  • CAROLYN YASHARI BECHER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1/24 - 9/24): $177,995 total reported compensation
  • THEODORE LECOMPTE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 9/24 - 12/24): $93,345 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 leadership network network will seek to recruit, train, and retain exceptional progressive leaders. The network will do this through i hosting a fellowship program continued on sch o

What it reported doing in 2024

The inaugural loft fellowship program represents a paradigm shift in developing public sector and campaign leadership. Through our intensive one-year full time paid fellowship program were equipping the next generation of progressive leaders with transformational business and management capabilities. In furtherance of the program aims, we have partnered university business schools to provide coursework on foundational business skills in leadership development, strategy and innovation, marketing and branding, people operations, decision making and data analytics, crisis management, entrepreneurship, and finance. This coursework is delivered in partnership with our proprietary hands-on application sessions which integrate and synthesize best practices, creating a dynamic learning environment where fellows master advanced operational frameworks through structured debate and real-world application.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 95% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.8%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 98.4%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1,346.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 16.9%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.22; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.8%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 198.8% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 193.5% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.8% of revenue deployed · 98.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $34.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $178K · 5 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $479K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.