Los Medanos College Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943295149
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Pittsburg, CA, USA
Phone
9254737315
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$236,740
Expenses
$256,812
Assets
$1,341,876
Liabilities
$7,971

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAMELA RALSTON (DIRECTOR - LMC PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LEETHA ROBERTSON INTERIM (FOUNDATION MANAGER (UNTIL MAY '25)): $189,811 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To develop resources and relationships that provide financial support to los medanos college students through student scholarships, student programs and services, instructional supplies, and facility improvements.

What it reported doing in 2024

Since its formation in 1997, the los medanos college (lmc) foundation has been committed to building pathways for lmc students to fulfill their dreams. The lmc foundation raises funds and allocates critical financial support for scholarships, educational and career technical training programs, teaching facilities, student scholarships and emergency funds.the lmcf provided general and emergency scholarships to students to support their career and academic success and low-income students struggling with basic needs totaling $124,865. By meeting these needs, students are able to focus on their studies, stay enrolled and complete their education. The lmcf is supported by donors and fulfills its purpose to help students succeed.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 80% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 69% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.8%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 79.2%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 80th 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: 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.5%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.23; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 73.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.6% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.8% of revenue deployed · 79.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $203K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $190K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.