Pep for 909 and 840 Area Codes

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
831913922
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Westlake Village, CA, USA
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$323,037
Expenses
$323,037
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

People named in this filing

  • SHAUNNA FORSHEE (FINANCE COMMITTEE CO-CHAIR)
  • KAREN RIEPENKROGER (FINANCE COMMITTEE CO-CHAIR)

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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Public education program (pep) by communications providers operating in California for the implemention of the 909 and 840 overlay for providing more telephone numbers for communications services as mandated by ca public utilities commission decision 19-06-012 issued on 6/19/19.

What it reported doing in 2020

Members are communications providers in California with assigned blocks of numbers in area code 909. Each member was assessed a share of the project expense based on the amount of number blocks assigned to them. Funds collected were used to implement the project; the main purpose of the project was public education about the overlay , with the elimination of 7 digit dialing. Mass media advertising campaign included television, radio, print, mass mailings and social media in various languages.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.8%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 95.8%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.8% of revenue deployed · 95.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 52 of 52 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $310K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 10 of 10 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.