Lancaster-Lebanon Education Foundation

Legal name: Lancaster-lebanon Education Foundat C/o Lancaster-lebanon Iu 13

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
134281183
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lancaster, PA, US
Phone
(717) 606-1873
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$104,714
Expenses
$108,557
Assets
$221,936
Liabilities
$27,191

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAM MCCARTNEY (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHERRY ZUBECK (TRUSTEE): $296,523 total reported compensation
  • KATHRYN NEYER (TREASURER): $172,731 total reported compensation
  • KRISTINA SLICK (VICE-PRES/SE): $147,422 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Lancaster-Lebanon Education Foundation, a charitable nonprofit organization, supports the IU13 education community by enhancing learning opportunities for students of all ages.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community education / student assistance (32,364) - support for adults, families, and youth to help them meet their individual goals, such as attaining a high school equivalency diploma, improving fluency in english, gaining u.s. Citizenship, and/or strengthening job skills. Refugee center (1,509) - support for refugees and immigrants served through iu13 community education to help them access community resources. Social work fund / season of hope (34,464) - in partnership with iu13 social workers, resources and supports are provided to families of iu13 students who need clothing, food, diapers, and other necessities. Ecses & is program support (4,518) - support for purchase of materials and supplies by iu13's special education services and instructional services programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 55
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.5%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 88.3%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $578.55 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 56.5%; rating input score 56; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -3.7%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.04; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 339.6%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 11 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 91.5% of revenue deployed · 88.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $96K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $297K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.