Inland Empire Community Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330748536
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Riverside, CA, US
Phone
951-241-7777
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$27,067,538
Expenses
$32,338,097
Assets
$168,618,357
Liabilities
$32,649,744

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Regis Michelle Decker (President & CEO)
  • Matthew Mena (IEGO Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Regis Michelle Decker (President & CEO): $241,552 total reported compensation
  • Brie Griset Smith (Chief Development Officer): $199,883 total reported compensation
  • Celia Cudiamat (Chief Impact Officer): $195,701 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To leverage our resources, leadership, and partnerships on our journey of making the Inland Empire a just and generous region for generations to come.

What it reported doing in 2025

GENERAL GRANTMAKING Inland Empire Community Foundation (IECF) invested more than $24 million in grants in 2025. Over $5 million of that was for scholarships and education. General grantmaking alone represented over $19 million in grants in the Inland Empire and beyond. (See Schedule O for Continuation)Grants were awarded to a broad spectrum of nonprofits in our two-county region of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Our grantmaking is generally in the areas of: Arts & Culture $702,581 Advocacy $945,741 Civic Benefit $772,154 Children & Families $1,072,128 Environmental Benefit $887,453 Economic Development$ 10,483,369 Scholarship$ 4,796,307 Health and Human Services $4,841,694 Other $29,564 Included in our grantmaking are funds that support particular issues or places. These include the Field of Interest Funds ($565,589) which are restricted to a specific program area or geographic area. For example, funds are currently helping with ADA compliance, supporting programs that serve the cities of Perris and Idyllwild (Rockwell Fund), the High Desert (Willmas Charitable Trust), victims of domestic abuse (Seraphim Fund), senior pet-owners and vet care (Herdina Fund), and the treatment and care of low-income children in Riverside County (Stebler Fund). IECF is proud to offer donors a way to invest long term in the issues and places they care about and sees its geographic funds as crucial investments to strengthen communities in the Inland Empire. Since 2011, IECF has been administering the S. L. Gimbel Foundation Fund, whose mission is to improve community conditions thereby enhancing people's quality of life. Program interest areas include food insecurity, environmental protection and conservation, education, and human dignity. In partnership with the Gimbel Foundation Trustees, IECF awarded over $71 million in the Inland Empire and nationwide.

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 81% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 93
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 94.2%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: 96.7%; rating input score 97; 36th 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: 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: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -19.5%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.21; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 5 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $30.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $242K · 23 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.6M reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 40 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 300 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 293 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 54/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.