LymeLight Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611645660
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Burlingame, CA, USA
Phone
6503485509
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,014,954
Expenses
$1,592,437
Assets
$1,210,459
Liabilities
$64,382

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Phyllis Bedford (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Scott Bedford (Chairman)
  • Scott Forsgren (Board Member)
  • Nora Thomas (Board Member/Program Mgr.)

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

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to provide grants to enable eligible children and young adults with Lyme disease to receive proper treatment and medication as well as raising awareness about Lyme disease.

What it reported doing in 2025

LymeLight foundation provides medical grants up to $10,000 (cumulative) to Lyme infected children and young adults who cannot pay for necessary medication and therapies. Grants cover doctor visits, medications, supplements, lab testing, alternative therapies, and transportation to out of the area physicians. In 2025, 250 total grants were awarded: 151 to new individuals and 99 to existing recipients. As most insurance companies do not cover the treatment of chronic Lyme disease, families are typically left on their own to battle the disease, often incurring extreme medical debt. By providing critical treatment, LymeLight bridges the gap of enormous unmet need. Since its inception in 2011, LymeLight has awarded grants totaling $11,426,200 to 1,583 individuals in all 50 states.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 83% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.5%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -56.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.76; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.