Yolo County Probation Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 273952204
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2012–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Woodland, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9165992172
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Labor Unions
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $50,882
- Expenses
- $30,495
- Assets
- $92,409
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Ranee Carter (President)
- Amy Fichtner (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Ranee Carter (President)
- Ivan Lowry (Treasurer)
- Open (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The yolo county probation association is a labor union representing juvenile detention officers and deputy probation officers in yolo county, California. The association represents members in collective bargaining (50%), administrative matters, grievances, disciplinary matters (40%) and promotes public safety through advocacy and outreach (10%). All acitivties of the association commenced upon formation and will continue to be conducted in yolo county, California by the board of directors and members at large.
What it reported doing in 2025
The yolo county probation association is a labor union representing juvenile detention officers and deputy probation officers in yolo county, California. The association represents members in collective bargaining (50%), administrative matters, grievances, disciplinary matters (40%) and promotes public safety through advocacy and outreach (10%). All activities of the association commenced upon formation and will continue to be conducted in yolo county, California by the board of directors and members at large.
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
- 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
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 69
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 40.1%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.03; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 20.6% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2025
- 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.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.