Oakland Army Base Workforce Development Collaborative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
912095892
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
5108918773
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Job Training

Reported finances

Revenue
$234,049
Expenses
$554,731
Assets
$453,602
Liabilities
$4,737

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Winston Burton (Chairman): $75,600 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Corporation has been formed for charitable purposes, to provide employment, casework, housing, healthcare, food and other social services to the economically deprived residents of Alameda County, California.

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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 6
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 73.4%; rating input score 73
  • 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -137%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.6%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 73.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 8 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $407K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $76K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.