San Joaquin County Office of Education Educational Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680342748
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Stockton, CA, USA
Phone
2094689053
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$328,568
Expenses
$295,264
Assets
$1,064,712
Liabilities
$27,114

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JANE STEINKAMP (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • TROY BROWN (CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD): $364,573 total reported compensation
  • TERRELL MARTINEZ (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER-IN): $336,831 total reported compensation
  • JANE STEINKAMP (PRESIDENT): $287,798 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 help preserve and improve the education of students under the jurisdiction of the san joaquin county office of education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Stem: stem provdies professional development for teachers, administrators, technology coordinators and others, focused on science, technology, engineering and math. The office of stem's mission is to spark inquiry related to the next generation science standars (ngss), national educational technology standards (nets) and the California science frameworks. Districts inside and outside san joaquin county, community colleges and universities in the region work with the office of stem to promote science, technology, engineering and math as core subject for all ages levels. The office also serves as liaison between th California department of education and other national/regional stem-oriented agencies. Our programs are deisgned to promote the improvement of stem education and techer leadership.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 68% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.5%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 96.2%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.1%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.61; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 108.1%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.5% of revenue deployed · 96.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $284K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $365K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.