Udw Afscme 3930 Stanislaus Benefits Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
465572639
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Diego, CA, USA
Phone
6192637254
Rating
38
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Insurance Providers

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,929,265
Expenses
$1,904,674
Assets
$271,355
Liabilities
$272,424

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ASTRID ZUNIGA (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DOUG MOORE (TRUSTEE): $400,913 total reported compensation
  • ASTRID ZUNIGA (PRESIDENT): $42,258 total reported compensation
  • FLORENCE CROWSON (TRUSTEE): $36,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

United domestic workers stanislaus health and benefits fund was established pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the stanislaus county in home supportive services public authority and united domestic workers of america, afscme local 3930(plan sponsor) to provide health insurance benefits for the providers covered under the collective bargaining unit agreement.

What it reported doing in 2024

United domestic workers stanislaus health and benefits fund was established pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the stanislaus county in home supportive services public authority (employer) and united domestic workers of america, afscme local 3930 (plan sponsor) to provide health insurance benefits for the providers covered under the collective bargaining unit agreement.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.3%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.14; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.9%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $401K · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.