Arlington Business Partnership

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203495906
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Riverside, CA, USA
Phone
9515091100
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$402,431
Expenses
$422,100
Assets
$96,897
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDREW GUERRA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANDREW GUERRA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $52,613 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The arlington business partnership (abp) provides promotional activities and physical improvements within the arlington business improvement district (bid) to promote the welfare, innovation, and sense of partnership for all businesses within the bid.

What it reported doing in 2018

In representing and promoting the businesses in the arlington area of riverside, abp continued with the long running chili cook-off and car/cycle show and winterfest programs to attract people in the surrounding communities to come and shop in the arlington area. Physical improvements made in the bid included holiday street decorations, grants to local business members, and maintenance on bid projects. In addition, assistance was given for membership marketing efforts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 90% 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

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: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.2%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 66%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 17th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.9%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.5%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14.1% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.2% of revenue deployed · 66% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $53K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2010 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.