Mountain Valley Homeowners Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
952654495
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Simi Valley, CA, USA
Phone
8055221136
Rating
31
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Homeowners & Tenants Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$329,523
Expenses
$298,587
Assets
$176,333
Liabilities
$20,960

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TONY FRANKLIN (President)
  • PAT WERT (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • PAMELA WELCH (Secretary): $67,930 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Homeowners organization to maintain mountain valley homes in simi valley, ca.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 90
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 40

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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.4%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.59; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.8%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -12.1% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 0 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $68K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2015 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.