Napa Valley Farmworker Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364790851
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Napa, CA, USA
Phone
7072613340
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,616,207
Expenses
$1,683,140
Assets
$6,143,674
Liabilities
$111,390

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAUL GOLDBERG (PRESIDENT)
  • ARNULFO SOLORIO (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SONYA DELUCA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • SONYA DELUCA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & CEO): $246,540 total reported compensation
  • JILL DURFEE (PROGRAM MANAGER): $122,158 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the napa valley farmworker foundation is to support and promote napa valley's vineyard workers through education and professional development.

What it reported doing in 2024

Family life: building community for farmworker families leads to a greater sense of belonging, stability, and mutual respect. Napa valley's vineyard workforce is year-round and permanent, making the need to support family focused programming essential. The foundation provided meaningful opportunities for growth, connection, and supportcelebrating the strength and contributions of the extraordinary farmworker community. Empowering families to contribute and thrive enriches the social, cultural, and economic fabric of the entire napa valley community.2,522 farmworkers and family members participated in 2024 family-focused programs which included:- health and well-being events: in partnership with the st. Helena hospital foundation and adventist health, 183 farmworkers received dental and vision screenings with 74 pairs of glasses distributed to those in need at the bi-national alliance health fair. In addition, 15 received complimentary early-detection cancer screenings at da de la familia.- da de la familia: over 2,500 attendees connected with 50+ local organizations at this annual community building event.- healthy strategies for managing stress was presented during the 3-day cultivar conference.viticulture and safety: farming napa valley's specialty winegrape crop requires remarkable skill, expertise, and proficiency. Achieving professionalism at this level requires investment in continued education and advanced training opportunities for the vineyard workforce who uphold the region's reputation for excellence.319 farmworkers participated in expert-led viticulture training programs, which included:- climate science & farming adaptations: learned about climate-smart farming and management practices to make napa valley vineyards more adaptable and resilient.- cpr & first aid: earned cpr and first aid certification, gaining life- saving skills to respond confidently in emergencies.- field day on songbirds & vineyard health: demonstrated the role of songbirds in supporting sustainable viticulture and vineyard health.- night harvest safety training: covered osha safety standards for nighttime vineyard operations.- 3-day welding boot camp: gained hands-on training in essential welding techniques and a certification from napa valley college.- the 22nd annual napa county pruning contest: celebrated the skill, talent, and dedication of napa valley vineyard professionals.- cultivar - viticulture & safety presentations: one day of the annual three-day conference covered pesticide application inspection ins & outs, challenges rootstock face in California, climate science & climate resilience in the vineyard, and more.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% 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.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.3%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 70.5%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 35.7%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.65; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.9%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.2% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.3% of revenue deployed · 70.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $247K · 8 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 39 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.