Tri Counties Community Action Partnership

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
825422521
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Orland, CA, USA
Phone
5308042024
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Salvation Army

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,103,176
Expenses
$1,162,506
Assets
$360,676
Liabilities
$40,621

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • LAUREN WONG (ECECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $85,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Empowering community members to reach their highest level of wellness and prosperity through parnership, adocacy and education.

What it reported doing in 2025

Community planning, training, and partner collaboration provide consultation, facilitation, training, program development, and partner coordination to public agencies, schools, health systems, managed care organizations, and community-based organizations. Work included community health assessment and improvement planning in glenn and colusa counties, rural health workforce planning, care management and community health program development and training, data and reporting design, grant and contract implementation support, and development of practical policies, workflows, training materials, and operational tools. These engagements brought partners together to identify community needs, gather and interpret local input and data, clarify roles, and translate funding or regulatory requirements into actionable plans. The work furthered tccaps charitable purpose by increasing local capacity, strengthening coordination among rural providers

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 86% 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

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 91
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.6%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 89.7%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.4%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.3%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 35.7% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 33.2% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 43.9% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.6% of revenue deployed · 89.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $85K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.