Friends of Alameda County CASA Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943309728
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Leandro, CA, USA
Phone
5106181960
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Child Abuse, Prevention

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$442,935
Expenses
$473,120
Assets
$1,831,204
Liabilities
$161,132

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Virginia Ring (Executive Dir.): $103,984 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Friends of CASA operates for the specific purpose of supporting the best interests of abused and neglected children in Alameda County by funding and promoting the work of the Alameda County Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program. It provides input into CASAs overall direction and budget, and serves as a community voice.The Alameda County Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program operates under administrative auspices of the Alameda County Health (ACH). Friends of CASA has a decision-making authority over its own accounts that are kept separately from ACH. Friends of CASA may decide to use any unrestricted reserves to make up for a budget shortfall or to supplement CASA activities. ACH may provide input to this, but the authority to use Friends of CASA's funds is that of Friends of CASA.

What it reported doing in 2024

Support youth education, critical needs such as food, clothing and transportation, culture, art, recreation, and enrichment activities, and needs for transitioning into independent adulthood. Support to educate the community about the mission and to recruit volunteers via publications, social media, advertising, and special events. Support the recruitment, training, and ongoing support of volunteers to advocate and mentor. And make recommendations to the court to support the best interests of youth in foster care. Offer staff and volunteer continuing education, and professional development through conferences and classes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.7%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 68.2%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.46 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -6.8%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.87; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.7% of revenue deployed · 68.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $323K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $104K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.