De Vargas Home and School Club Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942862521
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
San Jose, CA, USA
Phone
4082520303
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$39,061
Expenses
$58,321
Assets
$88,374

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHANE TATMAN (PRESIDENT)
  • JENNIFER LE (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SHANE TATMAN (PRESIDENT)
  • JENNIFER LE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ELLY KIM (TREASURER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Promotion of general welfare of de vargas elementary school. Our support shall assist in providing and enhancing the educational programs that will benefit all students. We shall promote communication and cooperation between home, school and the community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provided classroom support, including, but not limited to, classroom supplies, school supplies for needy children, blackboards, recess supplies, hospitality supplies, computers, special assemblies and other resources as needed.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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.

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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 98
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 95.3%; rating input score 95

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -49.3%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.52; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 95.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $56K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.