Live Oak Multipurpose Senior Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942394360
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Santa Cruz, CA, USA
Phone
8314763272
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Centers

Reported finances

Revenue
$43,204
Expenses
$13,109
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Lee Ann Shenkman (President)
  • Marge Webb (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Marge Webb (President): $2,012 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide facility for seniors' activities.

What it reported doing in 2016

Space for operations and fundraising is provided to various not for profit organizations at below market costs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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

MIXED - 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: 28
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 3.7%; rating input score 4
  • Program expense ratio: 76.2%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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; 64th 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 69.7%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.3%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -67% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -26.2% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -76.2% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 3.7% of revenue deployed · 76.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $10K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2014 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 4/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.