Napa Valley Grapegrowers Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822012860
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Napa, CA, USA
Phone
7079448311
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Food, Agriculture, and Nutrition N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,161,758
Expenses
$2,556,161
Assets
$10,748,796
Liabilities
$535,514

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PETE RICHMOND (PRESIDENT)
  • KAREN CAKEBREAD (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CALEB MOSLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CALEB MOSLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $199,039 total reported compensation
  • KATHIE CLEMENT (FINANCE DIRECTOR): $189,995 total reported compensation
  • EMILY HEGARTY (PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $155,736 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Cultivate viticultural excellence and environmental stewardship for the napa valley, to be a local and global leader for a science-based approach to grape growing and agricultural stewardship, to ensure the viability and resiliency of grape growing in the napa valley, to raise awareness and inspire action.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community: afternoon in the vineyards event is a community event held at various vineyard locations throughout the valley. This annual program is for napa county residents to discover unique vineyards in their neighborhood and learn about the grape-growing process, sustainable vineyard practices, and the resiliency of the napa valley wine community. The foundation also hosts the fire resources fair which offers resources for growers and community members to prevent or mitigate wildfires. Various exhibitors attend, and the napa county fire administrator and fire captain speak on defensible space and fuel load reduction projects along with answering questions from the community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 73% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for member benefits.
  • 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 32.9%; rating input score 33
  • Program expense ratio: 62.5%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.46 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 50.5%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.21; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.3%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.6% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.2% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 32.9% of revenue deployed · 62.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $199K · 20 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 39 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • 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.
  • 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 33/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 39/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.