San Mateo-foster City Community Education Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943110731
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Foster City, CA, USA
Phone
6503127235
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$937,975
Expenses
$749,724
Assets
$332,258
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JENEL LIM (PRESIDENT)
  • CHRISTINA OGBURN-CHOW (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KARINA WILHELMS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • COLLEEN SULLIVAN (DIRECTOR/INTERIM ED (PART-YEAR)): $25,400 total reported compensation
  • KARINA WILHELMS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $8,000 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 foundation is committed to reaching every child in the san mateo foster city school district. A strong school district does more than just support the children in its care, it impacts the entire community. A strong school district produces a smart and motivated supply of workers, and benefits the local economy, sustaining local businesses and property prices. We are committed to reaching out to our greater community, raising awareness of the value of supporting local schools to those outside of the immediate parent base. We believe so strongly in this that several members of the board are devoted entirely to outreach, both within the school district and outside to the corporations and businesses that rely on our business and the workforce that this district is creating.

What it reported doing in 2024

Through generous contributions from corporations, parents, and the community, the smfc education foundation is able to help fund:- music education at every elementary school- after-school athletics at our middle schools- scholarships for under privileged children to aid them in their education and move towards attending college.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 99% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.7%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.1%; rating input score 98; 46th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 20.1%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.44; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.4% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.7% of revenue deployed · 85.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $642K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $25K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 23 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.