Silver Valley Tortoise Refuge C/o Larry Joseph

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273305897
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2022
Location
Camarillo, CA, USA
Phone
8054456453
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Protection of Endangered Species

Reported finances

Revenue
$25
Expenses
$144,285
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • THOMAS MCGILL JD PHD (DIRECTOR, CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOANNE BUSH (DIRECTOR, SECRETARY): $575 total reported compensation
  • DOUG ERICKSON (DIRECTOR, EXEC VICE PRESID): $575 total reported compensation
  • THOMAS MCGILL JD PHD (DIRECTOR, CEO): $575 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The maintenance of suitable habit for California desert tortoise that will need relocation from renewable energy and other major construction project sites in san bernardino and riverside counties in southern California.organization was unsuccessful in raising funds needed to continue operations. Svtr liquidated in fiscal year march 31, 2023 and distributed its funds to six 501(c)(3) public charities.

What it reported doing in 2022

Svtr liquidated in fiscal year march 31, 2023 and distributed its funds to six 501(c)(3) public charities as follows: food share - ventura county, ca $ 11,500 ventura county rescue mission $ 11,500 salvation army - ventura county $ 11,500 alsac/st. Judes children's research hospital $ 34,500 a home 4 good inc., oak hills, ca $ 34,500 multiple sclerosis society - pacific south coast $ 34,500 total donations to 501(c)(3) $138,000

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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 3
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 95.6%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -577,040%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.6%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 66.7% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: -18.2% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 95.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $138K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $575 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2015 to 2022
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.