Silicon Valley De-Bug

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464274158
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2013
Location
San Jose, CA, USA
Phone
4089714965
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,528,306
Expenses
$3,323,858
Assets
$4,362,948
Liabilities
$344,937

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Raj Jayadev (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Raj Jayadev (Executive Director): $106,381 total reported compensation
  • Anna Turner (Board member): $9,275 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Silicon Valley De-Bug is a grassroots community organization based in San Jose, California comprised of young people and families from disadvantaged communities coming together to give voice to our typically unseen and unheard experiences through education, training, and media production. Silicon Valley De-Bug provides a safe space for our constituency to then act on pressing social issues and implement the solutions identified.

What it reported doing in 2024

Participatory Defense NetworkThe Organization launched the Albert Cobarrubias Justice Project ("ACJP"), an innovative program that enables families and communities to have an impact on their local juvenile and criminal justice systems. Led by the very families impacted by the court systems, originated "participatory defense" a community organizing model for youth, families, and community members to impact the outcome of cases and transform the landscape of power in the court system. The participatory defense framework combines multiple strategies including case advocacy, leadership development of youth and families affected by the justice system, and community organizing to develop and implement equitable justice policies. (continued on Schedule O)

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 93
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.5%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 97.1%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: $114.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.8%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.31; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.5%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.8% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.1% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.5% of revenue deployed · 97.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $106K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 18 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 16 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.