The Valley Green Team Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 800676479
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2013–2013
- Forms available
- Form 990 2012, Form 990-EZ 2013
- Location
- Sherman Oaks, CA, USA
- Phone
- 8185120512
- Rating
- 67
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Land Resources Conservation
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,810
- Expenses
- $1,923
- Assets
- $48
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CAROLYN CASAVAN (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- CAROLYN CASAVAN (PRESIDENT)
- PETER MCCARTY (DIRECTOR)
- DAVID ADELMAN (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Education in green practices such as energy efficiency, water conservation and sustainability.
What it reported doing in 2013
To educate businesses, workers, educators, students, government, non-profit and community organizations and the general public in green practices and technology to establish the san fernando valley region as a leader in sustainability.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 62% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
- 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. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and assets have declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 66
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 33
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 68.3%; rating input score 68
- Program expense ratio: 64.3%; rating input score 64
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -6.2%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.02; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -79% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -141.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 68.3% of revenue deployed · 64.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- 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.
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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
- Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.