The Catalyst Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 770357456
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Lancaster, CA, USA
- Phone
- 6619488559
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Independent Housing for People with Disabilities
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,196,873
- Expenses
- $4,193,762
- Assets
- $1,292,281
- Liabilities
- $504,674
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- David W Mashore (CEO)
- Rev Dr Ronald A Sparks (President)
Highest reported compensation
- David W Mashore (CEO): $169,318 total reported compensation
- Melisa Simmons (Director of Operations & Finance): $139,444 total reported compensation
- Erin Mize (Director of Programs & HR): $120,720 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
We dedicate ourselves to decreasing the impact of abuse and trauma on society and the world through direct service, advocacy, and empowerment of directly affected, marginalized, and disenfranchised groups. We commit ourselves to improving the health and well-being of low-income, uninsured, veterans, the re-entry population, and people experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness through outreach, education, supportive social services, and connection to medical and mental health care.
What it reported doing in 2024
Provide case management services to a person experiencing homelessness with various medical and behavioral health issues faced, as they move into and maintain permanent supportive housing. Intensive Case Management Services shall include, but not be limited to, the following authorized activities: outreach and engagement; intake and assessment; service planning; housing and rental assistance; linkages to health, mental health, substance use disorder services and other supportive services; ongoing monitoring and follow-up; assistance with benefits establishment, transportation, and legal issues; crisis management; eviction prevention; client education; housing location services; coordination and collaboration with Housing For Health partners; etc.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 90% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - 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: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 25
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.5%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 83.6%; rating input score 84
- Fundraising efficiency: $39.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 7th 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: Limited
- 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.1%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.39; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 13.1%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 19.5% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 83.5% of revenue deployed · 83.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $169K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2010 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.