Mammoth Lakes Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770245395
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Mammoth Lakes, CA, USA
Phone
7609343781
Rating
50
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$480,820
Expenses
$437,915
Assets
$7,800,259
Liabilities
$39,027

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELIZABETH TRUAX (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • KENDRA KNIGHT (Executive Dir.)
  • GARY MCCOY (MEMBER)
  • GARY MYERS (Secretary/Treas)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The foundation supports the development of higher education and cultural enrichment in the eastern sierra, including the establishment of a permanent campus in the mammoth lakes area that will provide facilities for academic studies, appreciation of the arts, and student housing.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Mammoth Lakes Foundation awarded 69 scholarships for the 2020-21 academic year to local students attending Cerro Coso Community College, Mammoth Lakes campus. Over 678 students have received scholarships since the programs inception. Today, the Foundation provides full-tuition scholarships and a book stipend each semester to local students of all ages enrolled at Cerro Coso. Students enrolled in a licensed vocational nursing program requiring travel also receive gas cards to help offset that expense. The Mammoth Lakes Foundation also provides academic support, mentoring, peer support, and other opportunities to its students including partial housing scholarships for eligible students residing in the South Gateway Apartments adjacent to the campus. The Mammoth Lakes Foundation also administers academic scholarships awarded to local high school students by the Terry Plum family.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 64% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and total assets are large relative to annual expenses, but may not be spendable cash. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 31
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30.3%; rating input score 30
  • Program expense ratio: 21.1%; rating input score 21
  • Fundraising efficiency: $25.62 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 8.9%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 17.81; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -16.3% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.8% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.8% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30.3% of revenue deployed · 21.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $92K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 30/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.