Foundation for Cottage Rehab and Goleta Valley Cottage Hosp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
260433816
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Phone
8052876903
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,297,454
Expenses
$782,803
Assets
$44,872,270
Liabilities
$162,688

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

People named in this filing

  • KATINA ZANINOVICH (CHAIR)
  • MEGAN STICHTER (TREASURER)
  • RICHARD BOYD (VICE CHAIR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the foundation for cottage rehabilitation and goleta valley cottage hospitals is to advance exceptional health and rehabilitation care at cottage rehabilitation hospital and goleta valley cottage hospital by inspiring philanthropic support, financial stewardship and patient advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2025

The foundation for cottage rehabilitation and goleta valley cottage hospitals provided support for the acute medical rehabilitation and related services at cottage rehabilitation hospital (crh), goleta valley cottage hospital (gvch), as well as the community at large. Support has included assistance to the hospitals for equipment, programs and staff training, and support of uninsured and under-insured patients for rehabilitation services. Through the patient assistance program, the foundation is able to assist patients with necessary supplies that they could otherwise not afford. The foundation annually supports the junior wheelchair sports camp, a day camp held at uscb recreation center. The camp is offered free of charge to youth between the ages of 6 and 19 with a wide range of physical disabilities. The foundation also sponsors an adaptive surfing event open, free of charge, to those with disabilities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 62% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.
  • 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: 28
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 95
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 20.2%; rating input score 20
  • Program expense ratio: 40.7%; rating input score 41
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.11 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd 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; 75th 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 76.3%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 57.32; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.2% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 20.2% of revenue deployed · 40.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $319K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 16 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $291K reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 41/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.