Sustainable Napa County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300472069
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Napa, CA, USA
Phone
7079273857
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$72,413
Expenses
$234,881
Assets
$211,235
Liabilities
$160,628

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JERI GILL (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JERI GILL (CEO): $88,500 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The primary mission of sustainable napa county is to promote the education and adoption of sustainable environmental practices with the county of napa, California.

What it reported doing in 2020

In addition to being a comprehensive community resource for sustainability and partnership in napa county, we place strategic focus on certain issues a few at a time in order to bring about results in the areas that need improvement most. Here's what we're working on: supporting green public policy development countywide, starting with green building ordinances.promoting renewable energy action by bringing new approaches to the community and working to reduce traditional barriers to action (such as financing for solar installations for homeowners).helping social service nonprofit organizations become energy efficient and more sustainable.becoming a comprehensive sustainability resource center for napa county reaching out to inform and inspire the residents of napa county where they live, work and play.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 94% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - 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: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 73.7%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -224.4%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.9; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.76; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 37.7%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.2% per year; rating input score 0; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 73.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $173K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $88K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

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: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.