Working Partnerships USA

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770387535
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Jose, CA, USA
Phone
4088092120
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health - General and Rehabilitative N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,623,411
Expenses
$7,612,762
Assets
$9,304,685
Liabilities
$599,912

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Leslie Rodriguez (President)
  • Fred Keeley (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Maria Noel Fernandez (Executive Dir.): $251,781 total reported compensation
  • Jeffrey Buchanan (Dir. Pol & PA): $222,475 total reported compensation
  • Derecka Mehrens (Strategic Adv): $188,264 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Working Partnerships USA is a community organization bringing together the power of grassroots organizing and public policy innovation to drive the movement for a just economy. We build the capacity of workers, low-income neighborhoods and communities of color to lead and govern. Based in Silicon Valley, we tackle the root causes of inequality and poverty by leading collaborative campaigns for quality jobs, healthy communities and equitable growth.

What it reported doing in 2024

Working Partnerships USA works in four broad areas of concern to working people health care, government accountability and reform, economic research and analysis, and organizing and leadership development. Working Partnerships USA develops policies, organizes and advocates for their adoption, develops leadership that empowers ordinary citizens, and connects smaller groups in ways that enhance their effectiveness.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.1%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 79.7%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.66 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98%; rating input score 98; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.1%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.22; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.2%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.7% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.1% of revenue deployed · 79.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $6.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $252K · 16 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $112K reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 40 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 17 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.