Los Angeles City College Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
956207819
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3239534011
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$27,350,780
Expenses
$4,169,370
Assets
$57,864,371
Liabilities
$223,115

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

30 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LISA NASHUA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THROUGH 6/25))
  • MARTHA ESPARZA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (FROM 7/25))

Highest reported compensation

  • DAREN LYNNE (DIR. OF STRAT. INITIATIVES): $148,191 total reported compensation
  • LISA NASHUA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THROUGH 6/25)): $141,868 total reported compensation
  • SILVIA MARTINEZ (OFFICE MANAGER & SCHOLARSHIP COORD.): $136,694 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We are committed to breaking the cycle of poverty and creating programs that drive change. By addressing students' basic needs, including food, housing, utilities, transportation, and healthcare, we enable low-income students to enroll, persist, and succeed in their education at los angeles city college.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization provided funding for academic departments at lacc and student engagment on campus, including support for the lacc food pantry & food hub, as well as supplies for use in various college departments.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 41% for direct work, and 59% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.6%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 76.2%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 84.8%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.88; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.6% of revenue deployed · 76.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $148K · 30 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 38 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.