Montecito Community Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 956149983
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Santa Barbara, CA, USA
- Phone
- 8056183125
- Rating
- 86
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $395,773
- Expenses
- $308,548
- Assets
- $1,699,919
- Liabilities
- $24,092
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- RUTH GREEN (PRESIDENT)
- CYNTHIA WITHERS MD (VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- RUTH GREEN (PRESIDENT)
- CYNTHIA WITHERS MD (VICE PRESIDENT)
- CHANA JACKSON (SECRETARY)
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
The purpose of the montecito community foundation is to support a strong montecito community and serve as a resource for philanthropy.
What it reported doing in 2025
Grants are provided for projects and programs that promote the general welfare and good of the montecito community. By the terms of its founding documents, the montecito community foundation confines its support to projects located in montecito which is defined as within the boundaries of the montecito fire protection district, and immediately adjacent areas.areas in which we provide grants include: projects which promote public safety and property protection, such as traffic improvements, fire protection, flood control, and earthquake and disaster preparedness.projects and events which foster the community and spirit of montecito, such as community celebrations, events honoring individuals or groups for improving our community and events which encourage greater community involvement.activities which inform residents of montecito on local and other matters, such as public forums on matters of current interest or concern, library resources, and other public resource information services.beautification and improvement of our public roads, parks, local government properties, and other public places.improvement and, occasionally, acquisition of recreational facilities, such as parks, open spaces, beach-side entrances, trail heads, and trails.maintenance and preservation of our community, such as community clean-up days of the roadsides and other public places.assisting local governmental entities with capital projects and other unique needs.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 67% of its reported program spending out as 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 liabilities are high compared with assets.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 94
- Accountability: 88
- Sustainability: 70
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 74.8%; rating input score 75
- Program expense ratio: 92%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: $27.96 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 22%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.51; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 14.4% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 74.8% of revenue deployed · 92% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $284K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 12 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: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.