4Th Trimester Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
922855544
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Pasadena, CA, USA
Phone
6267204888
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,072,995
Expenses
$1,074,766
Assets
$346,806
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RACHEL SCANDLING (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CEO)
  • MARISA CALLAHAN (BOARD CHAIR, PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • RACHEL SCANDLING (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CEO): $118,964 total reported compensation
  • CAYLA WILLINGHAM (SECRETARY, TREASURER): $74,191 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

4th trimester is on a mission to transform the postpartum experience for new parents by giving them resources, community support, and advocating for their needs.

What it reported doing in 2025

The recent wildfires accelerated 4th trimester's expansion across los angeles county, deepening our support for new parents during a uniquely vulnerable time. Since our wildfire response began, we served nearly 900 parents and children, distributed more than $192,000 in cash grants to 184 recipients, and distributed more than 40,000 essential items in 2025. These services help families meet immediate needs so they can begin rebuilding and focus on their postpartum healing and infants. 4th trimester addresses new parents' needs, especially those facing hardship, by delivering wrap-around care that provides practical, emotional, and systems-level support timed to when families need them most.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.1%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 56%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: $30.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 50%; rating input score 50; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.2%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.32; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 96.5% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 68.4% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 44.4% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.1% of revenue deployed · 56% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $602K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $119K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.