Montclair Village Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
020551618
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2018
Location
Oakland, CA, United States
Phone
510-339-1000
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$469,186
Expenses
$590,697
Assets
$405,221
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Virginia Davis (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Daniel Swafford (Executive Dir.): $51,634 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

A Business Improvement District is formed with business owners agree to pay an additional Assessment each year to the City of Oakland based on their gross revenue. The assessments paid by MVA businesses (and associate members) are used to pay for revitalization efforts in the commercial district, covering maintenance, beautification, promotions, and security issues above and beyond those supplied by City resources. As a 501(c)3 nonprofit, the MVA’s mission is to support and enhance the Montclair Village business district to be a vibrant destination for our businesses, residents, and visitors. The Association is governed by its By-laws. A Board of Directors, elected from its community of busi.

What it reported doing in 2025

Beautification / Design / Land Use In 2025, the Montclair Village Association (MVA) continued to enhance the districts physical environment through coordinated maintenance and streetscape improvements. Services included regular sidewalk and gutter cleaning, graffiti and debris removal (66 incidents), and removal of illegal dumping (24 incidents), along with maintenance of 38 planters, 80 tree wells, and 55 street banners. The Association also maintained 43 public art installations and pedestrian-oriented lighting, and replaced approximately 500 linear feet of rooftop string lighting to improve safety and aesthetics.The MVA collaborated with the City of Oakland on infrastructure and parking management, including continued support of the ParkMobile system at the public garage. The Association maintained district amenities and conducted ongoing stakeholder engagement through board meetings and direct outreach. These efforts improved cleanliness, visual appeal, and overall functionality of the commercial district.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 47% for direct work, and 53% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 95
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 93.8%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $41.93 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -25.9%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.69; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.7%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.4% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 93.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $554K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $52K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.