Sacramento County Criminal Justice Employees Union
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 680310851
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Gold River, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9168582689
- Rating
- 52
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Labor Unions
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $313,701
- Expenses
- $301,348
- Assets
- $669,957
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Randy Bickel (President)
- Arla Graeff (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Randy Bickel (President)
- Arla Graeff (Vice President)
- Becky Williams (Treasurer)
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
Sacramento County Criminal Justice Employees Union is the successor organization of Sacramento Sheriff Deputies. It was incorporated in November 1993, and in April 1994, won elections for two bargaining units in the County of Sacramento.Sacramento County Criminal Justice Employees Union is the recognized employee organization representing Criminalists, Criminal Investigators, Process Servers, Investigative Assistants, Child Support Officers, Park Rangers, Deputy Coroners, and Forensic Lab Technicians in the County. As the exclusive bargaining agent for those classifications as well as the Supervising Criminalist, Supervising Child Support Officer, Supervising Forensic Identification Specialist, and Supervisor Deputy Coroner. Sacramento County Criminal Justice Employees Union is responsible for negotiating contracts and processing work-place disputes on behalf of its members.
What it reported doing in 2024
Sacramento County Criminal Justice Employees Unions purpose is to: 1)obtain all rights and benefits to which the members are entitled and to disseminate knowledge of the association; 2) to promote harmony and co-operation among fellow co-workers; 3) to provide for the representation of members before regulatory bodies and/or courts of law.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 94% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
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: 93
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 58
- Growth: 100
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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 3.9%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.22; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 36.1% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.