Sacramento Region Community Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942891517
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9169217723
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$46,788,100
Expenses
$34,853,838
Assets
$257,273,503
Liabilities
$12,239,133

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kerry Wood (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kerry Wood (CEO): $303,812 total reported compensation
  • Nakisha Nesmith (Chief Impact Offic): $191,818 total reported compensation
  • Naomi Wilson (CFO): $172,714 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Sacramento Region Community Foundation leads, serves, and inspires enduring philanthropy for a just and vibrant Sacramento region.

What it reported doing in 2024

Leadership Statement: Together with our fundholders, the Foundation is proud to elevate philanthropy and its impact in our region. For over 40 years, the Foundation has helped our collective giving make the greatest positive impact throughout the four counties we serve: El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, and Yolo. We do this by focusing on the underlying causes of local challenges, seeking solutions with lasting results, and supporting the organizations that tend to the vital needs of the capital area -- after all, creating the conditions for meaningful transformation is our specialty at the Foundation. With your support, the Foundation is proud to elevate philanthropy and its impact in our region. If you believe as we do that working together to forge upstream solutions is the best way to strengthen our region, join our work and learn more at www.sacregcf.org.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 90% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.3%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 86.8%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $39.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 25.5%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.38; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.7%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.3% of revenue deployed · 86.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $30.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $304K · 20 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $271K reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.