San Diego Regional Disaster Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
861068424
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Diego, CA, USA
Phone
6192352300
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$22
Expenses
$212,349
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • BRIAN ZUMBANO (BOARD MEMBER): $409,044 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See schedule o. The corporation is a nonprofit public benefit corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. The specific purpose of the corporation is to provide a means of accepting public donations at such time as the san diego region experiences a natural or a manmade disaster in order to further the charitable purposes of san diego foundation within the meaning of section 509(a)(3). The corporation will make gifts and grants to other irc section 501(c)(3) organizations whose work aligns with the san diego regional disaster fund's mission, thus furthering the mission of san diego foundation.

What it reported doing in 2024

See schedule o.the san diego regional disaster fund's board of directors began implementation of its strategic plan that saw: - development of a revised fund activation process. - facilitated activation drill for sdrdf board. - development of a regional disaster stakeholder inventory. - creation of sdrdf communications collateral such as presentation slide deck and talking points. - learning meetings with key regional disaster stakeholders such as the county of san diego office of emergency services, and 211 san diego.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 3
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.4%; rating input score 99
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • 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: -965,122.7%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.4%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $211K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $409K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.