California Council of the Blind

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
941265032
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9164412100
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Eye Diseases, Blindness and Vision Impairments

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$107,197
Expenses
$213,416
Assets
$796,745
Liabilities
$16,251

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEFF THOM (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • JUDY WILKINSON (President)

People named in this filing

  • JEFF THOM (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • GABE GRIFFITH (2ND VICE PRES.)
  • GAIL CROSSEN (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

To gain full independence and equality of opportunity for all blind and visually impaired californians.

What it reported doing in 2016

Membership services -- assisted blind and visually impaired people by publishing a quarterly magazine available in braille, large print, cassette and diskette; conducting programs and activities through the council's statewide chapters and special interest groups; operating a toll-free number to provide peer counseling, referrals to training programs and government agencies, as well as advice and encouragement; assisting in acquiring and using special equipment; enhancing public awareness of the needs of blind and visually impaired persons; and providing information about available services and programs for the blind and visually impaired.

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 85% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 68.8%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.34 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -99.1%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.73; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -28% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -9.7% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 68.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $147K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2013 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 25/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.
  • 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.