Interbranch Special Projects Foundation of Santa Clara County ISPF AAUW

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770201841
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Jose, CA, USA
Phone
4088664234
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$436,244
Expenses
$324,763
Assets
$744,545
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PEGGY MARTIN (President)

People named in this filing

  • PEGGY MARTIN (President)
  • Virginia Turner (Treasurer)
  • ELENA ANDERSON (SECRETARY)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

ISPF was organized for charitable and educational purposes. ISPF itself does not raise funds but is a holding corporation for the monies raised by approved special projects.

What it reported doing in 2024

College costs have doubled over the past 20 years, and financial assistance is more important than ever. Applicants are residents of santa clara county, ca. Scholarships are awarded to women to help them pursue a college or other leadership certificate. Recipients are selected based on academic record, essays, recommendations and interviews. A total of 56 scholarships and awards were made. Following the scholarship awards, recipients are offered, throught the national aauw organization, workshops and other resources to enhance their professional and economic success after college.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.2%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 99.4%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 10.9%; rating input score 11; 38th 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 25.6%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.29; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.2% of revenue deployed · 99.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $463K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 11/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.