California State Grange

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
940362040
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9168358264
Rating
50
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$530,715
Expenses
$824,415
Assets
$1,895,892
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOSEPH STEFENONI (PRESIDENT)
  • VINCE SCHOLTEN (VICE-PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • LILLIAN BOOTH (SECRETARY)
  • JOSEPH STEFENONI (PRESIDENT)
  • WILL SHAW (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide mutual benefits, hold property, and oversee and assist the affairs of the subordinate granges in the state of California with emphasis on rural communities, family values and agricultural education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Providing financial stewardship over buildings left vacant or in disrepair due to the California guild (organization which tried to take over the grange in 2012 and the lawsuit was completed in november of 2019). The guild left the properties in disrepair, with unpaid bills, property taxes going to default, and other expenses needing to be paid by the California state grange. These buildings are in the midst of being repopulated with new members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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; 76th 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -55.3%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.3; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -10% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $168K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.