Cordova Community Council Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
208488524
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Rancho Cordova, CA, USA
Phone
9162735704
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nonprofit Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,210,389
Expenses
$2,285,805
Assets
$14,647,867
Liabilities
$1,506,924

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID M SANDER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHELLY BLANCHARD (EXECUTIVE DI): $189,496 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The cordova community council foundation engages citizens and organizations to strengthen community participation and collaboration, improve community image, and build sustainable civic and volunteer organizations.

What it reported doing in 2024

Rancho cordova fourth of july celebration: this project is a two-day event which includes a one mile road run, a fourth of july parade and a two-day festival. The event is the largest community celebration in the city and attracts 25,000 visitors. The festival event includes a carnival, food and beverage, attractions for families, concerts and fireworks shows. The cordova community council is responsible for all planning and management of event activities, securing all permits, parking management, trash management, volunteer recruitment and management, signage, ticketing, and labor to manage and support these activities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 72% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.6%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 65.2%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -3.4%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.41; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.3%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.1% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.6% of revenue deployed · 65.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $189K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.