Assistance League of San Pedro-South Bay

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
951882853
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Pedro, CA, USA
Phone
3108328355
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,556,119
Expenses
$932,828
Assets
$4,228,538
Liabilities
$101,246

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sharon Cole (President)
  • Karen Fleming (President Elect)
  • Janis Sanchez (Vice President)
  • Carol McCaskill (Vice President)
  • Gwen Rohar (Vice President)
  • John Barbara (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dr Brigida Abdelnaby (Dentist): $111,930 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Since 1936, Assistance League of San Pedro-South Bay, an all volunteer charitable organization, has been devoted to the needs of the children, families and seniors of its community. Our members are rewarded by the personal and direct involvement in fundraising, managing and staffing various philanthropic projects. We continue to identify the changing needs of our community and are committed to the growth, development and expansion of our chapter.

What it reported doing in 2024

Francis J. Johnson Dental Center continues to provide high quality, low cost dental care to 325 patients from 1 to 24 years old. The Dental Center, opened three days a week, is staffed by an accredited dental team. This year the center handled 1,153 patient procedures. We currently have 30 Orthodontia patients participating in our reduced fee orthodontic services. The reduced fee orthodontic services are provided by one local orthodontist with shared expenses from the Assistance League chapter. The Dental Center is funded by restricted gifts, grants, and other Chapter funds. Some expenses are reimbursed by DENTI-CAL.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 85
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.2%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 73.4%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.88 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 40.1%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.53; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.2% of revenue deployed · 73.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 13 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $685K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $112K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 34 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 50/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.