Bellevue College Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911051671
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Bellevue, WA, USA
Phone
4255645074
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,965,099
Expenses
$4,044,825
Assets
$28,585,858
Liabilities
$393,645

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LISA M BROCK (PRESIDENT)
  • MICHELE LAHTI (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • MELISSA JOHNSON (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MELISSA JOHNSON (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $176,834 total reported compensation
  • PAUL FEAVEL (DIRECTOR OF FOUNDATION FINANCE): $149,357 total reported compensation
  • LISA CARROLL (SENIOR DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT): $149,206 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Bellevue college foundation brings together people and resources across the community to invest in bc students, faculty, and staff to realize their goals and dreams.

What it reported doing in 2024

Bellevue college foundation encourages, recognizes and rewards the creative leadership, care for students, and drive for exceptional accomplishments embodied in the faculty, staff and administrators of bellevue college, and also provides emergency assistance to faculty, staff and administrators in times of need.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 70% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.7%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 68.8%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.07; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.7% of revenue deployed · 68.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $177K · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $113K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.