Nisei Farmers League
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 942153898
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Fresno, CA, USA
- Phone
- 5592518468
- Rating
- 50
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $888,643
- Expenses
- $937,433
- Assets
- $903,256
- Liabilities
- $353,304
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MANUEL CUNHA JR (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- MANUEL CUNHA JR (PRESIDENT): $219,600 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To promote development of the agricultural industry and related areas. Inform the general public and members of current problems confronting farm workers, growers, packers and shippers in the harvesting and marketing of agricultural products. Provide legal protection and assistance to members in connection with labor related issues and support and encourage the rights of farm workers, growers, packers and shippers, and the general public. Provide an agricultural labor network operation to effectively utilize the work force available and insure the orderly harvest of crops.
What it reported doing in 2024
Making available to its members approved poster packets with government- mandated information sheets for use in their business.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 34
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 59
- Sustainability: 27
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 38.5%; rating input score 39
- Program expense ratio: 36.5%; rating input score 36
- Fundraising efficiency: $2.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -5.5%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.96; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.39; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 23.4%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 38.5% of revenue deployed · 36.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 13 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $220K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 39/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 36/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.