Carmichael Improvement District

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300964664
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Carmichael, CA, USA
Phone
9164813015
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$562,408
Expenses
$514,297
Assets
$302,701
Liabilities
$450

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Diane Ebbit (Executive Director)
  • Samantha Beck (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Diane Ebbit (Executive Director): $30,833 total reported compensation
  • Samantha Beck (Executive Director): $10,164 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To advance and promote the common interest of Carmichael business and property owners by fostering economic development, security, and clean streets.

What it reported doing in 2024

Clean and Safe enhancements focus on making the District a safe place to do business. Clean and safe enhancements include: contracting with qualified private security to engage and patrol the District, coordinating with Sacramento County Sheriff to control vagrancy, property damage, encampment, and petty crimes; contracting with service provider for regular litter cleanup, graffiti identification and removal, illegal dump removal, abandoned car and shopping cart removal, and other sanitation services; and identifying and assisting with code violations and concerns.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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: 82
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 60

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: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 88.4%; rating input score 88; 37th 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 8.6%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.59; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -34.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $365K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $31K · 13 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $359K reported
  • Consistency: 11 of 13 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.