Balance

Legal name: Consumer Credit Counseling Service of San Francisco Dba Balance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
941688163
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Concord, CA, US
Phone
1-888-456-2227
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Financial Counseling

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$20,602,170
Expenses
$21,600,843
Assets
$12,876,303
Liabilities
$5,293,370

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ENRIQUE C DELGADILLO (President & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ENRIQUE C DELGADILLO (President & CEO): $410,149 total reported compensation
  • CYNTHIA CAMPBELL (COO): $329,073 total reported compensation
  • DARRELL CHRISTOFF (CIO): $203,424 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Balance is a national non-profit empowering individuals and families to take control of their financial lives.

What it reported doing in 2024

Smart money coaching in partnership with the san francisco office of financial empowerment, we strengthen the economic security and mobility of low income san franciscans through coaching to help remove barriers to accessing opportunities, access safe and affordable banking, establish emergency savings to better cope with financial shocks, reduce debt, and stabilize housing. Funding comes from city departments that enable us to reach underserved communities by interweaving program referrals through an existing service delivery within human services, housing authority, and workforce development agencies. Coaching is available to anyone living, working, or receiving services in san francisco.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 83% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 61% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.6%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.8%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.8%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 86.6% of revenue deployed · 82.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $17.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $410K · 13 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 41 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 27 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.