Ventura County Coalition of Labor Agriculture and Business

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273450952
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Ventura, CA, USA
Phone
8057975679
Rating
31
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$325,678
Expenses
$303,019
Assets
$174,603
Liabilities
$829

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BUD SLOAN (President)
  • JURGEN GRAMCKOW (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • LOUISE LAMPERA (Executive Dir.): $175,616 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The specific purpose of this corporation is to identify issues of vital importance to the prosperity of Ventura County and the citizens who live and work here; to provide information and education to those citizens regarding any such identified issues of importance to their well being, particularly those issues that have an impact on agriculture, business or labor; to promote the common business interests of its members; to engage in political activities which promote those common business interests; to foster a postive image for agriculture, business and labor within the community; to represent itself and its members before the Government of the United States, the State of California, the County of Ventura, any organization or any community or incorporated city within said county; and, if necessary, take legal or administrative action for the mutual benefit of the members on issues related to agriculture, business or labor.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization promotes a healthy an expanding economic base in ventura county by monitoring regulatory policy; educating and representing labor, agricultural and other business interests while protecting the local quality of life.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - Revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 24
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 26.2%; rating input score 26
  • Program expense ratio: 28.1%; rating input score 28
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.58; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 58%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 26.2% of revenue deployed · 28.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 6 board members independent · 0 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $176K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 26/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.