League of Women Voters Pasadena Area

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
951879838
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2011, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Pasadena, CA, USA
Phone
6267980965
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Voter Education, Registration

Reported finances

Revenue
$47,045
Expenses
$49,137
Assets
$168,892
Liabilities
$16,226

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARTHA ZAVALA (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • KAREN ROBERSON (President)

People named in this filing

  • KELSEY GREEN (Secretary)
  • DONNA JONES (Membership)
  • MARTHA ZAVALA (PAST PRESIDENT)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Citizen Education and Voter Service

What it reported doing in 2024

Citizen Education and Voter Services involve timely meetings/programs on current voter issues, voter registration, non-partisan candidate forums, monthly publications, all involving community involvement.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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 a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.6%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 62.8%; rating input score 63

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.4%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.44; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.9% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.6% of revenue deployed · 62.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $31K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.