Moraga Park Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942639039
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Moraga, CA, USA
Phone
5104990243
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$51,342
Expenses
$57,479
Assets
$188,678

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Matt Brobak (President)
  • Christine Camp (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Matt Brobak (President)
  • Christine Camp (Vice President)
  • Peggy Woehleke (Secretary)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To create a sense of a Moraga Community by enhancing recreational, cultural, and educational activities while improving the park facilities in the Town of Moraga

What it reported doing in 2025

Funding projects in whole or in part, such as the Summer Concert Series, Monarch Butterfly Habitat at Rancho Laguna Park, Hacienda Nights, Family Movie Nights; and . . . Soliciting volunteers and funds for park projects such as the Rheem Triangle landscaping, skate park improvements and fencing, and various park landscaping projects

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. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.28; rating input score 76; 76th 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: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $57K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.