Victoria Park Improvement Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
741269789
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Victoria, TX, USA
Phone
3615734521
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$722,610
Expenses
$782,059
Assets
$1,550,256
Liabilities
$181,455

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEN MILES (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • KEN MILES (PRESIDENT)
  • MITCHELL THURMAN (VICE PRESIDE)
  • BUD SPAULDING (SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Maintenance and development of public parks

What it reported doing in 2016

Maintenance and development of city park facilities; membership open to the general public.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.2%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.98; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.8% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $782K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2016
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.