Inland Regional Center

Legal name: Inland Counties Regional Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237121672
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Bernardino, CA, USA
Phone
9098903000
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Developmentally Disabled Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,290,094,337
Expenses
$1,290,519,243
Assets
$355,487,535
Liabilities
$373,422,684

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAVINIA JOHNSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEVEN BECKETT (GENERAL COUNSEL): $648,418 total reported compensation
  • LAVINIA JOHNSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $403,212 total reported compensation
  • MERISSA STEUWER (FINANCE DIRECTOR): $329,567 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Inland Regional Center is a springboard to greater independence for people with developmental disabilities in the Inland Empire. (Read Story)]( Mission Statement: To empower individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families by ensuring equitable access, clear communication, culturally responsive supports, and strong community partnerships. To empower individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families by ensuring equitable access, clear communication, culturally responsive supports, and strong community partnerships. Vision Statement:.

What it reported doing in 2024

Another way is a volunteer organization made up of employees of inland counties regional center inc. That was formed in 1986 when a small group of concerned employees became frustrated that many of their clients and families were struggling to pay for basic needs, such as food, clothing, utilities, rent, medication and other needs. These dedicated employees wanted to help their most vulnerable clients with needs that could not be met by icrc because of legislative constraints and/or strict funding guidelines placed on the agency. The group began meeting during their lunch hour to organize food sales and other small fundraisers to raise money to help their clients meet these unmet needs. Virtually all the money raised by another way goes directly to help clients.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 99% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 93% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.6%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 95.6%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th 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; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.28; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.05; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.3%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 95.6% of revenue deployed · 95.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.2B in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $648K · 27 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $187.5M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 22 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.