The Reservoir
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 993517624
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Salinas, CA, USA
- Rating
- 71
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community, Neighborhood Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $450,000
- Expenses
- $402,266
- Assets
- $50,738
- Liabilities
- $3,004
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JASON SEDANO (Vice President)
- TRACY PROIETTI (President)
People named in this filing
- Jose Corona (Director)
- Connie Bowen (Director)
- MELANIE WONG (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
RESERVOIR Farms is a living public-private partnership where growers, startups, industry, and the public sector work side by side to deliver lasting technological and economic outcomes.
What it reported doing in 2024
The reservoir is committed to building tech incubators for California's future. The goal of the nonprofit is to create spaces where startups, organizations, and corporations can develop and test innovations beyond Silicon Valley, focusing on rural areas like the Central and Salinas Valleys. The Reservoir drives economic growth, workforce development, and environmental resilience across California's agricultural heartlands.
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 88% 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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 78
- Transparency & Controls: 78
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 43
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 77.9%; rating input score 78
- Program expense ratio: 87.1%; rating input score 87
- Fundraising efficiency: $16.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
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: 53.4%; rating input score 53; 43rd 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: 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: 10.6%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.13; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 77.9% of revenue deployed · 87.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $350K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $129K reported
- Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
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: 4 of 6 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 53/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
- Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.