1 San Diego

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471398771
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
San Diego, CA, USA
Phone
8589253174
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Society Benefit N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$213,022
Expenses
$299,850
Assets
$168,781
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DENA DISARRO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • LANI LUTAR (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DENA DISARRO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $79,943 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Dedicated to promoting equal access to economic prosperity, safe and vibrant communities, and an enhanced quality of life to ensure every san diegan has the opportunity to succeed. One san diego supports the interest of neighborhoods citywide and seeks to enrich the lives of all san diego's economy, and building an educated and skilled 21st century workforce. Through its work, one san diego seeks to support the organization of the mayor's office and city, engage neighborhoods through collaboration and community involvement, and better connect san diegans with lilac leaders to build more resilient communities.

What it reported doing in 2019

Better a block: one san diego leads a unique partnership between faith based organizations, the san diego police department, and the community to achieve the following goals: 1) enhance community engagement, 2) promote community policing and 3) augment dialogue between faith communities and law enforcement. Block by block, community block parties bring residents and resources together.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 78.9%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 17.5%; rating input score 18; 35th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -40.8%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.56; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.7%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.6% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 38.8% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 78.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $237K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $80K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2015 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 18/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.