Big Brothers Big Sisters of San Luis Obispo County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770348487
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
San Luis Obispo, CA, USA
Phone
8057813226
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$728,291
Expenses
$758,999
Assets
$380,375
Liabilities
$148,605

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STACY SALAME (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • STACY SALAME (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $108,430 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Provide children facing adversity with strong and enduring, professionally supported one-on-one relationships that change their lives for the better, forever.

What it reported doing in 2025

Our community-based program creates strong and enduring relationships by connecting vulnerable local youth with volunteer adult friends. Volunteers are thoroughly screened and professionally trained in order to ensure child safety. Volunteers and children spend at least six hours a month exploring shared interests and developing positive stable relationships. Volunteers enrich children's lives by modeling healthy choices and providing connection with their community. Our professional staff provides individualized case management to each match relationship and hosts educational and enriching group activities for all program participants. The agency conducts regular baseline and follow up surveys to ensure long-term positive results.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 84% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.6%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 51.4%; rating input score 51
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.54 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: 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: -4.2%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.5; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.39; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.3%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.6% of revenue deployed · 51.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $390K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $108K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 54/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.