Jericho Road Pasadena Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463703303
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Pasadena, CA, USA
Phone
6267147234
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Society Benefit N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$249,055
Expenses
$204,947
Assets
$182,411
Liabilities
$4,848

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kim Olpin (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kim Olpin (Executive Director): $80,001 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Jericho Road Pasadena provides professional expertise to local nonprofits to strengthen their community impact.

What it reported doing in 2024

Skills based Volunteerism: Since 2010, Jericho Road Pasadena has connected volunteer experts with non-profits that offer critical services to underserved residents in our community. By meeting the internal needs of these non-profits free of charge - from Strategic Planning to Marketing and IT - non-profit staff can focus on stronger delivery of services, thereby building better communities. JRP follows a seven-step match-making and project management process that defines clear outcomes for the non-profit and matches the right volunteer to the non-profit's needs. Projects range from one-time consultations to year-long projects, and might be executed by one volunteer ot a team. For the 2024-2025 fiscal year, JRP matched professionals to non-profits for a total of 1,075 hours, at an overall benefit of $214,135 all free to our non-profit clients.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.2%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 64.8%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: $27.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.7%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.89; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 39%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.2% of revenue deployed · 64.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $133K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $80K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.