Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium Inc (Scelc)

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
912158378
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
North Hollywood, CA, USA
Phone
3107286792
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,478,415
Expenses
$2,083,084
Assets
$34,205,422
Liabilities
$29,990,089

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TERI OAKS GALLAWAY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TERI OAKS GALLAWAY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $225,651 total reported compensation
  • DONNA LAFOLLETTE (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $155,452 total reported compensation
  • JASON PRICE (DIRECTOR OF LICENSE AND OP): $147,286 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Scelc creates sustainable and tailored opportunities that serve our libraries today and in the future.

What it reported doing in 2024

Continuing education, networking and staff development activities: with the support of scelc staff, librarians serving on advisory committees, the scelc board or task forces help scelc provide a number of opportunities in this area. These activities include: a) events such as the scelc vendor day, colloquium, deans and directors' symposium, and research day. These events take place during a one-week span to provide continuing education for the cutting-edge issues confronting today's libraries and attract more than 300 librarians over the course of one week. In recognition of tight library budgets, all events are free or verylow cost, with costs underwritten by scelc, with some vendor sponsorships providing some additional revenue; b) meetings three times per year of a collections and electronic resources committee to provide current awareness of trends in the library information marketplace; c) professional input on license language and terms and conditions from a license advisory committee; d) a competitive funding awards process to enable conference attendance for librarians; e) research incentive awards to help librarians complete and publish their research; f) scholarships and awards to scelc libraries' staff and interns to offset the costs of completing an accredited degree-granting library science program; g) a scelc project initiative fund to provide seed money to libraries to enable new kinds of inter-library collaborative projects, such as the aforementioned scelc shared print project; h) a scholarly communications committee to address the growing area of changes in research and open access publishing.i) a monthly virtual communication event entitled "scelc channel one," in response to the challenges posed by the pandemic at the scelc institutions and their libraries. Channel one has effectively served to broaden outreach to scelc libraries and has created a larger community focused on current issues facing scelc libraries.j) a monthly virtual townhall with library deans and directors to discuss scelc opportunities and administrative challenges in research, medical, and academic libraries.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 78% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.2%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 78.3%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 7th 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 74.1%; rating input score 74; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 16.42; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.88; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 37.2%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.4% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.2% of revenue deployed · 78.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 17 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $226K · 21 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.