Families Protecting the Valley

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770544028
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
Madera, CA, USA
Phone
5596733921
Rating
42
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$46,848
Expenses
$71,346
Assets
$15,054
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHESTER P ANDREW (V PRESIDENT)
  • DENIS PROSPERI (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CHESTER P ANDREW (V PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN GIACONE (TREASURER)
  • DENIS PROSPERI (PRESIDENT)

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

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the nonprofit corporation is to protect and conserve water resources of California, in general, and the san joaquin valley, in particular; and promote knowledge and awareness of these issues and how they affect agriculture and the general economy of California, in genereal, and the san joaquin valley, in particular.

What it reported doing in 2019

The organization made major strides in informing the public about current water use as it pertains to farming and urban use in the central san joaquin valley, and it's fiscal impact on the valley

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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: 92
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 0

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -52.3%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.21; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -9.5% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 10 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2010 to 2019
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.