California Crime Victims Assistance Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 680066712
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2013–2015
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2015
- Location
- Sacramento, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9093823669
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Professional Societies, Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $20,772
- Expenses
- $19,036
- Assets
- $51,779
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Ronnetta Johnson (President)
People named in this filing
- Ronnetta Johnson (President)
- Kasey Halcon (Secretary)
- Flerida Alarcon (Treasurer)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To advocate for crime victims' rights and support Victim/Witness Assistance Programs that promote quality services for all crime victims and witnesses consistent with California law.CCVAA provides members with a forum for training, information sharing, and collaboration, ensuring consistent, quality services throughout California. Additionally, the organization advocates for funding and legislation for Victim/Witness Assistance Programs.
What it reported doing in 2015
Provided a comprehensive centralized system of training and resources to support victim services statewide. In addition, CCVAA maintained a web site with information such as training, legislation, and resources for victims and witnesses and those who serve them.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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. Reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 74
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 57
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 71.1%; rating input score 71
- Program expense ratio: 77.6%; rating input score 78
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 8.4%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.72; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 149.4% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 37.3% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 71.1% of revenue deployed · 77.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $15K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2013 to 2015
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.