California Turtle & Tortoise Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330406653
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2012
Location
San Bernardino, CA, USA
Phone
6615998425
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$65,006
Expenses
$102,648
Assets
$1,916,864
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN KIM (EXECUTIVE OFFICER CEO)
  • LYNDA MISIAK (CHAPTER PRESIDENT)
  • JOANNA BOLT (CHAPTER PRESIDENT)
  • REGENE FONVILLE (CHAPTER PRESIDENT)
  • GERALD REZES (CHAPTER PRESIDENT)
  • SHARON PAQUETTE (CHAPTER PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JOHN KIM (EXECUTIVE OFFICER CEO)
  • VIRGINIA DOEPPING (VICE CHAIR)
  • HEATHER PONEK (SECRETARY)

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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Dedication to turtle and tortoise conservation, preservation, welfare and adoption of non-native and native species

What it reported doing in 2020

Rescue care and adoption: the calfiornia turtle and tortoise club is dedicated to the preservation, conservation and education of turtle and tortoises. The ca turtle and tortoise club has a rescue and adoption program for desert tortoises and other turtle species. The rescue of turtles and tortoises are carried out along with all reltaed medical treatments for survival and placement of domesticated species. On their website, tortoise.org, they also off a wide variety of care and health information along with specific articles relating to the conservation of turtles and tortoises.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 87% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 87.7%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 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: -57.9%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 18.67; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -20.7% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.4% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 87.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $90K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 25 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2015 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • 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.