Preservation Action Council of San Jose

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770254542
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
San Jose, CA, USA
Phone
4089988105
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$251,162
Expenses
$317,606
Assets
$381,091
Liabilities
$1,116

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL SODERGREN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • BENJAMIN LEECH (EXECUTIVE DI): $151,169 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Preservation action council of san jose(pac -sj) is dedicated to preserving san jose's architectural heritage through education, advocacy, and events. Since its founding in 1990 pacsj has focused on making our community a better place by preservibng its history so that current and future generations can learn from the past.

What it reported doing in 2024

The presrvation action council of san jose is dedicated to preserving our unique and diverse architectural and cultureal heritage. Through advocacy, education, and civic engagement, we promote historic preservation as an essential tool for forstering equitable, distinctive, sustainable, and prosperous communities. We are citizen advocates for san jose's historical landmarks and neighborhoods, collaborating with residents, property owners, government agencies, elected officials, and other stakeholders to proctect and revitalize the places that make san jose special. We celebrate san jose's diverse architectiural and cultureal heritage through a robust program of walking tours, lectures, workshops and guidebooks designed for residents and visitors alike. We provide resources and a voice for citizens to protect the places important to theri communities and assist them in engaging elected official and impacting the city's developments review process.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 69% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 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: 21
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 22.3%; rating input score 22
  • Program expense ratio: 19.8%; rating input score 20
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.12 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: -26.5%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.2; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 47.6%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -56.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.8% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 22.3% of revenue deployed · 19.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $63K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $151K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 22/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.