Bay Area Lyme Major Gift Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463312992
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Portola Valley, CA, USA
Phone
6505302439
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,138,912
Expenses
$2,211,972
Assets
$13,226,073
Liabilities
$118,682

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAURE WOODS (PRESIDENT)
  • LINDA GIAMPA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LINDA GIAMPA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $276,479 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The bay area lyme major gift fund has been established to support the charitable activities of certain supported organizations including, but not limited to, the bay area lyme foundation, whose purposes or activities include the prevention, care, treatment, and increased public awareness of lyme disease or other tick-borne diseases.

What it reported doing in 2024

Grants are made in support of bay area lyme foundation as well as to other nonprofit organizations focused on the prevention of and finding a cure for lyme disease; promotes an increased public awareness of symptoms, treatments, and care of individuals with lyme disease; and increases the accessibility of care and treatments for those affected with lyme disease. In 2024 grants in the amount of $680,000 were made to support the operations of lyme disease biobank foundation, whose focus is to ensure that scientists have a collection of human biological samples needed to facilitate the research in the field of lyme disease and other tick-borne infections. In addition, grants of $686,500 represent support of the grant and prevention/awareness programs and general operations of bay area lyme foundation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 83% 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 most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 93
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 16.2%; rating input score 16
  • Program expense ratio: 74.6%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.55 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 80.1%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.98; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.4%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.7% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 16.2% of revenue deployed · 74.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $276K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $517K reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 16/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.