California Foundation for Excellence in Podiatric Medicine

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942822628
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9164859373
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$48,002
Expenses
$86,644
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Melvin Barton DPM (Asst Treasurer): $4,800 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide scholarship money for podiatric students and financial support for endowed chairs at accredited California podiatric medical schools.

What it reported doing in 2015

The Foundation assisted several endowed programs that benefit the Schools of Podiatric Medicine and individual students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 63.5%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -80.5%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.5%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11.2% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 63.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $55K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $5K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2015
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.