West Valley Homeowners Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 371503059
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2014–2015
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2015
- Location
- Saratoga, CA, USA
- Rating
- 88
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Homeowners & Tenants Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $372
- Expenses
- $372
- Assets
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
1 person listed
People named in this filing
- Cynthia Barry (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The westvalley homeowners association was organized in 2004 for the purpose of resolving the thirty year long conflict among the city of saratoga, the west valley-mission college district and the neighborhoods surrounding the west valley college(wvc) campus of the college district concerning the construction of a outdoor stadium at the college and related issues.the three parties involved in the conflict had informally agreed to a series of settlement meetings convened by the saratoga city manager and it was necessary for the neighbors of the college and the various neighborhoods to coalesce around some organization that would represent their interests in the setllement discussions. In response, wvhoa was formed then incorporated as a California domestic corporation with the intent that the organization would also seek nonprofit status under section 501c4 of the IRS code.at its inception, wvhoa also adopted a second and broader purpose: to monitor issues in front of or affecting the ci
What it reported doing in 2015
The westvalley homeowners association was organized in 2004 for the purpose of resolving the thirty year long conflict among the city of saratoga, the west valley-mission college district and the neighborhoods surrounding the west valley college(wvc) campus of the college district concerning the construction of a outdoor stadium at the college and related issues.the three parties involved in the conflict had informally agreed to a series of settlement meetings convened by the saratoga city manager and it was necessary for the neighbors of the college and the various neighborhoods to coalesce around some organization that would represent their interests in the setllement discussions. In response, wvhoa was formed then incorporated as a California domestic corporation with the intent that the organization would also seek nonprofit status under section 501c4 of the IRS code.at its inception, wvhoa also adopted a second and broader purpose: to monitor issues in front of or affecting the city of saratoga and/or the west valley/mission community college district and to advocate on behalf of the residents and neighborhoods of the west valley area with regard to those issues. Within that broad purpose, the organization is dedicated to placing high priority on environmental issues and monitoring and advocating with regard to those issues where practical.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- 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. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 100
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 189.5% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 189.5% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $372 in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
- Consistency: 4 of 4 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
- 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.