League of Women Voters of San Francisco

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
941747974
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4159898683
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Voter Education, Registration

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$43,698
Expenses
$39,193
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Ashley Raveche (President)

People named in this filing

  • Ashley Raveche (President)
  • Cheryl Harris (Treasurer)
  • Leah Edwards (VP, Voter Svcs)

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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan, multi-issue organization that encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in government. The League works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy. We are an organization of women and men who want to make a difference in the political future of our communities. The important work of the League of Women Voters of San Francisco is typically carried out by its committees.The League of Women Voters of San Francisco Education Fund which conducts our voter service and citizen education activities is a 501(c)(3) corporation, a nonprofit educational organization. It: Builds citizen participation in the democratic processStudies key community issues at all government levels in an unbiased mannerEnables people to seek positive solutions to public policy issues through education and conflict management.

What it reported doing in 2016

1. Inspector of Election services we help monitor elections of local boards, including the distribution of unbiased ballots, collection of ballots, on-site voting, and counting of ballots per the organizations bylaws. This is our only paid service.2. Speakers Bureau we offer free educational discussion of the local ballot measures upon request of a community organization. Volunteers are trained speakers and provide non-partisan, unbiased information. This event is a free service.3. Pro & Con Guide we research and write a non-partisan proposition guide on local ballot measures, translate the guide into Spanish and Chinese, audio record the guide for the visually impaired and distribute the guide at community events. This guide is distributed for free.4. Community Forums we host candidate debates for local elections where all qualified candidates are invited to speak, each is permitted the same amount of time, and the community may direct questions to the candidates. These events are a free service. 5. Candidate Statements - collaborate with SFGOVTV to film statements of all eligible candidates for the local district, transportation, and college boards. This service is free.6. Pro & Con Discussion collaborate with SFGOVTV to film the discussion of proponent and opponent arguments on local ballot measures. This service is free.7. Voter Registration provide registration and community outreach upon request, including training of new volunteers. This service is free.8. SmartVoter/VotersEdge website we provide unbiased, non-partisan information on candidates and local ballot measures for the website in collaboration with MapLight services that track campaign finance of the issues and candidates in order to educate the voters on who is funding the campaign. This service is free.9. Membership Events These member events are open to non-members and we discuss organizational strategy as well as provide a panel discussion on member-approved hot topics, such as affordable housing, money in politics, rank choice voting, etc. Events are volunteer run.10. Advocacy We take positions on local ballot measures based off of a 2 year study.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - 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: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.5%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 56.9%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $70.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.3%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -17.7% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -23.9% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -12% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.5% of revenue deployed · 56.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $22K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes related organizations
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2011 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.