Assistance League of Santa Monica

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
951647807
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Santa Monica, CA, USA
Phone
3103952338
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Service Clubs

Reported finances

Revenue
$546,277
Expenses
$529,117
Assets
$1,210,344
Liabilities
$35,738

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GAYE SAXON (President)

People named in this filing

  • CYNTHIA HILL (CORRESPONDING)
  • LESLIE NORDBY (Treasurer)
  • GLORIA FOWLER (sec. recording)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Assistance League of Santa Monica is a nonprofit organization comprised of member-volunteers who assist children and families in the Santa Monica Bay Area through a variety of philanthropic programs.

What it reported doing in 2025

Community Outreach and SupportCommunity Outreach includes donations on a one-time basis, usually in response to an emergency or unique opportunity. Community Outreach provided: Funds to the Village Nation Program to register and transport 50 bussed-in Palisades High School students unable to stay after school for college preparatory classes to a conference at the University of California, Santa Barbara.21 Halloween costumes for the Venice Community Center.82 Prom clothing for seniors at Santa Monica High School.Twenty-six boxes of books to the Salvation Army.60 Books for the Palisades Library, destroyed during the recent fires.Community Support provides resources to ongoing non-profit community partners. It has several projects: Upward Bound House received furnishings for use in 4 apartments in their housing for families transitioning from homelessness.The Westside Food Bank received a cash donation that secured about 80,000 meals.Growing Side by Side, a non-profit corporation providing support for families of neuro-diverse youth, received a donation that covered the cost of 75 families participation.Two non-profit organizations- Bresee Foundation and St. Joseph Center received in-kind donations of clothing and other needed items.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 62% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 88% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.1%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 67.8%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.46 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.7%; rating input score 99; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.1%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.29; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.1% of revenue deployed · 67.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $359K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • 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: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.