Oak Grove Educators Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942842639
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
San Jose, CA, USA
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$232,902
Expenses
$233,231
Assets
$461,422
Liabilities
$5,761

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LUIS VELASQUEZ (PRESIDENT)
  • BOB PROLA (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • LUIS VELASQUEZ (PRESIDENT)
  • BOB PROLA (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ALEJANDRA MARTINEZ (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. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Through the unity of voice and democratic decision-making, Oak GroveEducators Association works to unite our professional colleagues andsupport innovative instruction for the benefit of all students and thecommunity. We advocate for and are committed to quality public ed

What it reported doing in 2024

Through the unity of voice and democratic decision-making, Oak Grove Educators Association works to unite our professional colleagues and support innovative instruction for the benefit of all students and the community. We advocate for and are committed to quality public education. To these ends, we promote and defend the well-being of our members and the rights of our children.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 71% 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

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 60

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; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.1%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.98; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.8% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.