What are CharityWatch’s methodologies and specific findings in its assessments of BLMGNF?
Executive summary
CharityWatch evaluates nonprofits primarily by reviewing audited financial statements, IRS Form 990 filings and public disclosures and then assigns letter grades or a “?” when financial reporting raises specific concerns; it applied this approach to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF) but withheld a grade because of incomplete documentation and unresolved questions [1]. CharityWatch’s public findings about BLMGNF focus on missing or partial filings, an unexplained fiscal-year change, large transfers from fiscal sponsors, opaque “commitments” to chapters, governance gaps, and specific line-item flags in tax filings [1] [2] [3].
1. Methodology: “We look for audited statements, 990s, and clear disclosure”
CharityWatch says it bases ratings on direct analysis of audited financial statements and IRS Forms 990, supplemented by state charity records and outreach to the charity itself; it contacted BLMGNF in January 2022 seeking the fiscal 2020 audited statements and 990s and searched federal and state databases for those filings when expecting to issue a grade in early 2022 [1]. Because those primary documents were not publicly available in the sources CharityWatch checked, and because BLMGNF did not provide timely responses, CharityWatch could not complete its usual documentary analysis and therefore assigned the organization a “?” rating indicating specific concerns about financial reporting [1].
2. What “not available” meant in practice: partial filings and a changed fiscal year
When CharityWatch later received a 2020 IRS Form 990‑EZ from a private source, it discovered BLMGNF had changed its fiscal year-end from December 31 to June 30, which meant the 2020 filing covered only the six‑month period from January through June 2020; CharityWatch flagged this change as material because it complicated comparisons and full-year transparency [1]. CharityWatch explicitly stated that the audited financial statements and complete 990s it sought for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2020 were not in the public state or federal databases it checked, limiting its ability to verify impact claims [1].
3. Large transfers from fiscal sponsors and how CharityWatch framed them
CharityWatch repeatedly points to a large transfer reported in fiscal sponsor records: Thousand Currents’ audited consolidated statements show that in October 2020 BLMGNF received a transfer of $66,490,000 from that fiscal sponsor, a fact CharityWatch highlights as central to understanding the national group’s balance sheet and donor flow [4] [3]. CharityWatch uses such audited sponsor disclosures to triangulate a charity’s resources when the charity’s own reports are incomplete, and it indicated that an adequate analysis of audited statements and tax filings would be necessary to trace how such funds were used or distributed [5].
4. “Committed” vs. distributed funds: impact-report skepticism
CharityWatch criticized wording in BLMGNF’s public impact reporting—such as a claim to have “committed to 30 local organizations and BLM chapters approximately $21.7 million”—because “committed” was not defined and did not prove funds were actually disbursed; CharityWatch said verifying those statements would require independent analysis of audited financials and 990s that the foundation had not provided [5].
5. Governance and leadership concerns that affected the assessment
CharityWatch raised governance questions, noting that only two officers/directors were listed on BLMGNF’s 2019 Form 990‑EZ and that co‑founder Patrisse Cullors left an executive role in May 2021, after which CharityWatch said it was unclear who was running daily operations and who sat on the board—an opacity the watchdog flagged as concerning for donors [2].
6. Specific line‑item flags and related-party questions
In later filings and CharityWatch blog posts, the watchdog highlighted specific items such as a $73,523 receivable described as travel and expense reimbursements due from the executive director in the fiscal 2021 filing, which the charity characterized in its filing as not a loan and partly related to charter travel for security during COVID; CharityWatch flagged such entries as examples of line items that merit clearer explanation in audited statements [6]. CharityWatch also called attention to payments to consultants and board‑affiliated firms reported elsewhere—issues it uses to prompt donors to seek more transparency [7].
7. Legal disputes, investigations, and CharityWatch’s posture
CharityWatch has published updates cataloging lawsuits between BLMGNF and other BLM entities and noting public reports of federal scrutiny; while CharityWatch reiterates that full clarity requires audited records, it has framed ongoing litigation and reporting as additional reasons for donor caution and for the organization to provide the missing documents [8] [9]. CharityWatch’s current public posture is cautionary rather than accusatory: it assigned a “?” rating to BLMGNF to signal documented gaps in financial reporting while stopping short of drawing conclusions that require evidence not yet produced [1].
Conclusion: what donors should take from CharityWatch’s assessment
CharityWatch’s methodology is documentary and comparative—relying on audited financials, 990s, and clear disclosures—and its specific findings on BLMGNF are procedural and transparency‑focused: missing or partial filings, a fiscal‑year change that complicates review, large transfers documented via fiscal sponsor statements, ambiguous “commitments” to chapters, governance opacity, and flagged line items that need fuller audited explanation; collectively these findings produced a “?” rating that signals unresolved reporting concerns rather than a conventional grade [1] [4] [2] [5] [6].