Las Lomitas Education Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942952818
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Menlo Park, CA, USA
Phone
4083903952
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$707,759
Expenses
$1,384,532
Assets
$594,148
Liabilities
$1,200,000

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAN BERGERON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ELI SUGARMAN (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN MCGRORY (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • MONDONNA KENNEDY (VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • ANN PELLEGRINI (VICE-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAN BERGERON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $139,442 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To raise funds to close the gap between the increasingly expensive cost of high-quality education and existing public funding for the las lomitas school district.

What it reported doing in 2024

The las lomitas education foundation raises funds to compensate for the difference between the funding from property taxes and other sources and the full cost of a high-quality education. The las lomitas school district is one of the highest performing districts in the state, and the residents of the district rely on the district for providing high quality education for their children. The property tax base only covers roughly three-fourths of the cost of the current provision of education at the district, so the las lomitas education foundation is a key source of funding for the district to continue its work at its current level.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 86% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 65
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 86.7%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.48 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • 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: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -95.6%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.43; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.02; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.1%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.4% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $139K · 19 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.