Shiva-Vishnu Temple of Stockton

Legal name: Stockton Hindu Cultural and Community

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010927505
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2015
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Stockton, CA, USA
Phone
Temple: (209) 931-1197; 209-929-8072
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hinduism
Affiliation
Hinduism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$587,738
Expenses
$95,824
Assets
$1,488,754
Liabilities
$100,000

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RATAN UMA NAIDU (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • PRASAD ADITI DIGHE (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • RATAN UMA NAIDU (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DEEPAK KAVITA SHRIVASTARA (DIRECTOR)
  • RAGUNATH PALLA K REDDY (DIRECTOR)

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 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Build A Hindu Temple; Provide A Place of Worship; Celebrate Hindu Festivals and Rituals; Community Center; Cultural Center; Spiritual Center; Yoga Center.

What it reported doing in 2015

The specific purpose of this corporation is to provide a place of worship for those of the hindu faith, and to promote the maintenance and growth of faith through cultural or charitable activities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 36
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 91
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 14%; rating input score 14
  • Program expense ratio: 86.1%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 83.7%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 15.54; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.3% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 49.3% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 42% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 14% of revenue deployed · 86.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $83K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 18 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2013 to 2015
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 14/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.