Community Foundation of the Napa Valley
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 680349777
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Napa, CA, USA
- Phone
- 7072549565
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Community Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $17,350,645
- Expenses
- $8,804,361
- Assets
- $96,591,211
- Liabilities
- $8,378,485
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
20 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- TERENCE MULLIGAN (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- TERENCE MULLIGAN (PRESIDENT): $334,529 total reported compensation
- SANDY FASOLD (CFO): $189,152 total reported compensation
- JULIA DENATALE (VP OF COMMUNITY IMPACT): $164,915 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 mobilize resources, promote philanthropy and provide leadership on vital community issues in napa county. We look for charitable projects that make a lasting difference. We commit our resources to these projects, and inspire others to do so, (continue on schedule o)as well. We believe there is strength in numbers - that by working together, we can help more people more quickly than any one donor acting alone. We multiply the impact of individual givers, pooling resources for the common good in our community impact funds. We serve as a catalyst for positive change in napa county.
What it reported doing in 2024
Provided grants to 258 organizations covering a variety of charitable purposes including youth, health, family services, legal immigration services, food, shelter, and other humanitarian efforts, education, religion, the arts and disaster relief and recovery. Engaged in community leadership activities, including convening stakeholders, nonprofit and local leaders on important issues for napa county. Managed a multi-year campaign to create new citizens in napa county called the one napa valley initiative, which in the 12-year period ending 6/30/25 provided legal consultations and (continuation on sch o) esl classes to nearly 14,000 residents, helped more than 8,250 submit applications for citizenship and other immigration benefits to the u.s. Government, and enabled almost 2,600 people to become u.s. Citizens. Continued the fifth year of a pilot initiative called the napa sonoma adu center, to help create more affordable rental units for the valley's workforce and accelerate adoption of accessory dwelling units (adus) and spun the project off in february 2025 to a separate fiscal sponsor, community initiatives. In the five year-period between the launch and the spinoff, nearly 850 feasibility reports were issued to homeowners to help them construct adus, and nearly 100 of these homeowners have committed to renting to low-income families at subsidized rates, via a partnership with the county of napa's affordable adu forgivable loan program.the napa valley disaster relief fund (disaster relief fund) and its related fund, the 2020 napa county wildfire fund, were active during the fiscal year ending at 6/30/2025, as a result of the residual effects of the august 18, 2020 and september 28, 2020 California states of emergencies related to the lnu and glass fires in napa county. As a result of these two disasters, grantmaking to qualified nonprofits to provide relief, recovery and disaster preparedness programs and financial assistance to eligible people who live or work in napa county, were made during the fiscal year ending june 30, 2025. These grants provided services and financial assistance to those in long-term recovery still recovering from the 2020 wildfires. Grants also were made during the period to support napa valley community organizations active in disasters (coad), a network of nonprofit, faith community and government sector groups whose mission is to improve coordination and communication before, during and after a disaster. Additional grants funded the fire prevention efforts of napa communities firewise foundation.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 80% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 63
- Transparency & Controls: 93
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 83
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 51.5%; rating input score 52
- Program expense ratio: 84.3%; rating input score 84
- Fundraising efficiency: $17.96 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 98.1%; rating input score 98; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 49.3%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.97; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.3%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 51.5% of revenue deployed · 84.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $335K · 20 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $395K reported
- Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 346 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 341 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 54/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.