Alliance for Workforce Development Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680100999
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Quincy, CA, USA
Phone
5302839621
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Job Training

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,558,869
Expenses
$6,535,162
Assets
$753,189
Liabilities
$418,840

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Connie Barton (President)
  • Gil Mathew (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kristine Zuazua (Executive Dir.): $186,056 total reported compensation
  • Jeff Harrington (Deputy Dir.): $145,922 total reported compensation
  • Joni Moore (Finance Dir.): $117,005 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide workforce development services throughout Plumas, Lassen, Modoc, Butte, Nevada, and Sierra counties in Northern California to include a broad range of workforce development and community centered inititiatives.

What it reported doing in 2024

Alliance for Workforce Development, Inc. provides workforce development servicesthroughout Butte, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Plumas, and Sierra counties in NorthernCalifornia. These services include a broad range of workforce development andcommunity centered initiatives. This year, 18,892 individuals accessed the manyservices available at our 8 America's job centers of California plus 4 additionalsatellite offices. Our goal each year is to meet the needs of our communities byoutreaching and providing services to as many businesses and job seekers as possible. The number of individuals requiring additional services, beyond universal services, and enrollment into the WIOA programs was 788.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 88% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 64% for direct work, and 36% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.3%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 97.7%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.4%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.12; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.56; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.7%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.9% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97.3% of revenue deployed · 97.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $186K · 13 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $142K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.