California Mentor Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943284632
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Mill Valley, CA, USA
Phone
4157891007
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Private Grantmaking Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$274,978
Expenses
$385,297
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PEYTON STEIN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ANDREW M MECCA (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANDREW M MECCA (PRESIDENT): $149,694 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 promote mentoring as the most successful and cost effective means of preventing at-risk youth from making choices that are detrimental to their lives and to society as a whole

What it reported doing in 2015

Mentored youths in California and other states.helped the statewide mentor programs match over 500,000 mentor's with mentee's.worked with coalitions across California to grow resources and insure mentoring programs met quality assurance standards. Supported the growth of quality assured mentoring programs. Built a web site one-stop shop. Created partnerships with sports centers, volunteer programs and after-school tutoring programs conducted four of the largest surveys ever done on the benefits of mentoring.provided over one million dollars in grants over the past decade.developed the evelyn freed mentor center , passport2mentoring and the lifeplan tool kit, to support mentors, coaches and parents in the process of positive youth development with their children.developed and implemented the lifeplan program, reaching over 5,000 young people by jan 2013.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 53% for direct work, and 47% for 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: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 4
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.9%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 97.9%; rating input score 98; 54th 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -40.1%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 38.9%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -48.2% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $385K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $150K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2011 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

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

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.