Supporters Of Recall Pamela Price

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
933173817
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
5104234300
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,357,429
Expenses
$1,889,355
Assets
$21,723
Liabilities
$697,016

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

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Philip Dreyfuss (Pr. Officer)
  • Isaac Abid (Pr. Officer)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Supporters of Recall Pamela Price wants to bring safety back to Alameda County by recalling soft-on-crime District Attorney Pamela Price in the November 5, 2024 election.

What it reported doing in 2024

Supporters of Recall Pamela Price supported the campaign RecallPamelaPrice.org of SAFE (Save Alameda For Everyone) to remove Pamela Price as District Attorney for Alameda County in the November 5, 2024 County Election. The committee supported the effort to recall Pamela Price by covering some of the costs for signature gathering, polling, petition campaigns, tv and digital advertising, financial services, fundraising consulting and online fundraising fees. Voters recalled Price by a margin of 62.9%-37.1%. This was the first time in the county's history that a district attorney was successfully recalled.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 91%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.84 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd 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; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -39.2%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.01; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 32.09; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 80.9% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 71.1% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 91% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 2 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $1.7M reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.