Community Foundation of the Verdugos

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
956068137
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Glendale, CA, USA
Phone
8182418040
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,016,356
Expenses
$1,107,255
Assets
$14,869,271
Liabilities
$941,623

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EDNA KARINSKI (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • EDNA KARINSKI (CEO): $152,511 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

By combining the power of donors and charitable organizations, the community foundation of the verdugos increases the reliability and impact of non-profits by establishing endowed funds that support the impact of self-reliant organization through grants.

What it reported doing in 2024

Unrestricted and board designated grants: providing awards to charitable organizations (upon their submission of an application to one competitive grantmaking cycle annually). There are two staff members employed to assist with the foundation's annual operations. Grants are made for the physical, social, mental, and educational well-being of residents residing in burbank, glendale and the foothill communities of la canada, la crescenta, montrose, and verdugo city including communities surrounding this area. Grants are made to area nonprofits for programs and services ranging from healthcare needs and social services, to the arts, education, civic needs, and environmental and animal welfare services. Because of the complexity of tracking expenses spent in the issuance of grants (and in the requesting of follow-up reports from nonprofits receiving grants) and in tracking expenses spent in the cultivation of donors wishing to implement a donor advised fund, tracking specific activities to each grant or donor relation would be impractical. The foundation does not do annual campaigns or galas or other fundraising activities that many nonprofits take part in but, rather, relies more on building one-on -one relationships with donors and prospective donors through planned giving and bequest efforts.

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 83% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. 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: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 74.6%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th 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: 51.1%; rating input score 51; 16th 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: 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: 72.4%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.43; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.8%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.2% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 74.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $826K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $153K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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 9/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 51/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.