Bay Area Deputy Sheriffs Charitable Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300287554
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016, Form 990-N 2007
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4155508888
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$504,109
Expenses
$450,980
Assets
$443,993
Liabilities
$187,663

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHEDRICK MCDANIELS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID WONG (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SHEDRICK MCDANIELS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • LEONARD KOON (SECRETARY/TREASURER)
  • CHRIS MCDANIELS (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the bay area deputy sheriffs charitable foundation is to provide financial support to prevention programs that serve the poor and vulnerable in san francisco. The foundation assists underprivileged children in securing school products and holiday gifts and other programs that seek to prevent our youth from turning to a life of crime. The foundation supports programs that protect our elderly from abuse and neglect. The foundation also supports medical research that will help save lives.

What it reported doing in 2016

Back to school program: needy families of various san francisco low income communities such as bay view hunters point and tenderloin were provided with school backpacks and other school supplies.the bay area deputy sheriffs' foundation financed the purchase of school supplies for middletown middle school located at 20932 big canyon road, middletown, ca 95461. Middletown had been devastated by a massive fire which destroyed many of the homes in this area. This destruction left both the school and parents short on necessary school supplies and funds.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 74% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.5%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 63.1%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 4.7%; rating input score 5; 21st 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 10.5%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.98; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.42; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.5% of revenue deployed · 63.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $285K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 31 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2014 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 5/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.