Urban Voices Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
824461292
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2018
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3237411887
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$553,382
Expenses
$696,404
Assets
$133,313
Liabilities
$34,626

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LOUISE MCCARTHY (PRESIDENT AND CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • LEEAV SOFER (EXECUTIVE AND ARTISTIC DIRECTOR): $73,551 total reported compensation
  • NANCY WILLARD (FINANCE DIRECTOR): $39,783 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Rooted in skid row through music, community and openhearted inclusion of the most marginalized members of society, urban voices project amplifies artistic expression to improve well being, strengthen social networks, and inspire individuals to be their own best advocates.

What it reported doing in 2025

Delivered impactful arts wellness programs to over 5,000 individuals in skid row and throughout los angeles and orange county. Focused on supporting current staff through a deficit year. Successfully navigated an executive leadership transition in july. Strengthened program impact with new and expanded community partnerships. Celebrated 10th year of music programs in skid row with community event and choir concert

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 79.6%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.85 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -25.8%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.19; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.3%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.5% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.4% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 79.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $554K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $74K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.