San Diego Regional Center
Legal name: San Diego Imperial Counties Developmental Services Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 953735517
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- San Diego, CA, US
- Phone
- 858.576.2996
- Rating
- 85
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Developmentally Disabled Centers
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $993,496,415
- Expenses
- $993,703,955
- Assets
- $177,820,991
- Liabilities
- $179,078,803
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
29 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARK KLAUS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- KATHERINE KINNAMONT (ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- MARK KLAUS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $467,738 total reported compensation
- JAIME BAREA (PHYSICIAN): $305,056 total reported compensation
- KATHERINE KINNAMONT (ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $251,637 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 serve and empower persons with developmental disabilities and their families to achieve their goals with community partners.
What it reported doing in 2024
See schedule o.the entity was organized in accordance with the provisions of the lanterman developmental disabilities services act of the welfare and institutions code of California. In accordance with the act, the entity works in partnership with people with developmental disabilities, their families, local communities, service providers, and the government. Its mission is to enable persons with developmental disabilities to live independent, productive and satisfying lives in their community; the entity also strives to lessen developmental delays in infants and young children, and minimize the risk of developmental disabilities. Among the services and supports the entity provides, or coordinates, are diagnosis and assessment, individualized planning and service coordination, early intervention and prevention, community living options, supported work and vocational programs, advocacy, training and educational opportunities, and other support services for consumers and families. See schedule i for a breakout of expenses for program service accomplishments.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 98% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 92% 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 86
- Transparency & Controls: 83
- Accountability: 97
- Sustainability: 26
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 96.5%; rating input score 97
- Program expense ratio: 96.5%; rating input score 96
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- 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: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 95%; rating input score 95; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: -0%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.01; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.2%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 96.5% of revenue deployed · 96.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 19 of 20 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $958.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $468K · 29 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $118.8M reported
- Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
- 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.