San Joaquin County Correctional Officers Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680401671
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
French Camp, CA, USA
Phone
2094992208
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Labor Unions

Reported finances

Revenue
$331,779
Expenses
$353,069
Assets
$352,817
Liabilities
$6,234

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • OFC RUBEN RODRIGUEZ (PRESIDENT)
  • OFC STEVE WILLIAMS (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • OFC RUBEN RODRIGUEZ (PRESIDENT)
  • OFC STEVE WILLIAMS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • OFC EMMA CERVANTES (SECRETARY)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To serve as a labor organization and represent its members in labor relation matters with the County of San Joaquin including, but not limited to matters involving wages, benefits and all other terms and conditions of employment.

What it reported doing in 2025

To secure and advance officer safety, promote harmonious employee relations between San Joaquin and SJCCOA, to establish and equitable and peaceful procedure for the resolution of differences, establishment of salaries, working conditions, and any other conditions of employment, and where appropriate, legislative and political programs, consistent with the mission of the SJCCOA.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 92% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 53
  • Accountability: 6
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.2%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 92.3%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th 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: -6.4%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.2% of revenue deployed · 92.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 10 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 20 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.