Los Alamitos Education Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 953756247
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Los Alamitos, CA, USA
- Phone
- 5622776876
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,394,576
- Expenses
- $2,543,888
- Assets
- $1,209,984
- Liabilities
- $464,390
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Carrie Logue (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Carrie Logue (Executive Director): $169,179 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Partner with the Los Alamitos Unified School District to provide initiatives, programs and funding for programs that measurably improve student achievement throughout the District's schools.
What it reported doing in 2025
Donations to the school district. LAEF believes in audacious goals and its current programs are just the beginning. As LAEF grows, the sucess of students and the greater community will grow. LAEF is always looking to offer more specialized classes to stay ahead of the curve on enriching minds and inspiring success. LAEF is continuing to raise funds for the district to use as needs are constantly evolving; whether it continues to be targeting teachers or a new program forseen by district administration, staff or parents.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 82% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 85% 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
STRONG - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 85
- Transparency & Controls: 69
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 19
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 97.4%; rating input score 97
- Program expense ratio: 91.7%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: $2.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 21st 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -6.2%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.48; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.38; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.7%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.6% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 97.4% of revenue deployed · 91.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $169K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.