Las Palmas Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330497515
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Encinitas, CA, USA
Phone
7609449050
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,002,561
Expenses
$1,474,026
Assets
$25,900,318
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOSEPH MICHAELS (PRESIDENT)
  • LESLIE MICHAELS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • RYAN MONTE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • NOAMI PINES (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARY WHITE (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOSEPH MICHAELS (PRESIDENT): $526,418 total reported compensation
  • LESLIE MICHAELS (VICE PRESIDENT): $198,713 total reported compensation
  • NOAMI PINES (VICE PRESIDENT): $139,974 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Las nbsp; palmas nbsp; foundation nbsp; a nbsp; California nbsp; non-profit nbsp; corporatin nbsp; is nbsp; dedicated nbsp; to nbsp; acquire nbsp; develop nbsp; rehabilitate nbsp; and nbsp; support nbsp; affordable nbsp; housing nbsp; the nbsp; organization nbsp; was nbsp; created nbsp; to nbsp; increase nbsp; and nbsp; improve nbsp; housing nbsp; for nbsp; low nbsp; and nbsp; moderate nbsp; income nbsp; families nbsp; and nbsp; individuals

What it reported doing in 2024

Co-managing general partner in almaden family housing partners lp which owns and operates a 220 unit affordable family apartment complex in san jose California. It is a bond and tax credit development.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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: 39
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 17.5%; rating input score 17
  • Program expense ratio: 87.8%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 79%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 17.57; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 71.3%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 17.5% of revenue deployed · 87.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 62 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $526K · 8 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 17/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.