Tri-city Volunteers Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942217681
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Fremont, CA, USA
Phone
5105984069
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Emergency Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,818,547
Expenses
$3,788,932
Assets
$1,441,957
Liabilities
$206,259

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • TAYLOR JOHNSON (FORMER E.D.): $163,614 total reported compensation
  • LINDA LEU (Executive Dir.): $24,663 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Reaching hunger where it lives in the tri-cities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Tri-city volunteers is a non-profit organization that provides food assistance to the residents of alameda county. We are the largest client-direct food bank in the area. We serve up 16,000 individuals every month through our marketplace, mobile pantry and bag lunch programs. With a staff of 6, a volunteer force of approximately 1,000, and a budget that barely breaks $1.1m, we are extremely efficient in distributing 2 million pounds of food annually. When available, we also provide hygiene items to in-need families and individuals.we serve all low-income residents of alameda county. Many of our clients come frommigrant families, are under-employed, or are facing unemployment due to disability or a lack or relevant work skills.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.5%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 91.1%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $35.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.8%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.38; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.8% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.7% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.5% of revenue deployed · 91.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $164K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.