West Contra Costa Board of Realtors Dba West Contra Costa Assoc of Realtors

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
941090292
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Richmond, CA, USA
Phone
5102331152
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$577,910
Expenses
$1,807,805
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Michele Manzone (President)
  • Brett Stratton (Past President)
  • Arianna Gallegos (President Elect)

People named in this filing

  • Tyra Wright (Director)
  • Renee Bartels (Director)
  • Jack Burns Jr (Director)

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 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The West Contra Costa Association of Realtor is a 75 year old business league whose mission is to insure that it's 460 members are in compliance with the REALTOR Code of Ethics and to provide those members with support that serves their business interests and the interests of our community. The Association provides a myriad of tools and resources for the necessary documentation in real estate transactions.

What it reported doing in 2013

Supra Key programThe Real Estate industry is totally dependent on using lock boxes as a means to show homes while owners are away or working. Most agents show homes while the owner is not present allowing their clients full access to browse their potential new home in a comfortable setting without undergoing the sometimes unwanted scrutiny of the sellers. This is an industry standard supported by the Association.The Association seeks security for our industry clients and has realized the importance of key controlled systems such as key lock boxes. These boxes provide the public with maximum security coverage. The real estate industrys adoption of electronic boxes is another example of technology meeting a public need. Easy and protected access to listings, reduced liability, and the need for improved homeowner security and privacy are among other reasons for the Association to support this modern-day technology.The need:1. To reduce industry and Broker/Agent liability and increase Broker/Agent value to their clients. This a a general public benefit as opposed to a particular service to members.2. To ensure consumer confidence, comfort, security and acceptance.Again, this a a general public benefit as opposed to a particular service to members.3. To provide immediate, accurate reportage as to exactly (a)WHO exactly entered the property, (b) WHEN exactly they entered the property, (c) WHEN exactly they departed the property. 4. To prohibit anyone not in good standing with the Association from gaining access to properties5. Security risks of un monitored and undocumented access are eliminated.6. History shows high acceptance of electronic boxes and increased confidence in their Broker/Agent.Again, this a a general public benefit as opposed to a particular service to members.The Association understands that one's home is likely their most valuable asset. The Supra key program has been put in place and supported by the Association with this public interest in mind.

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

MIXED - 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: 100
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 40

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: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -212.8%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 20.1% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -77.3% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2011 to 2013
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.