University of West Los Angeles
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 952458679
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2009
- Forms available
- Form 990 2009
- Location
- Inglewood, CA, USA
- Phone
- 3103425200
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Undergraduate College (4-year)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,934,083
- Expenses
- $4,579,132
- Assets
- $3,037,476
- Liabilities
- $1,125,991
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2009. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2009. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide an opportunity for individuals from various backgrounds to obtain a quality legal education at a moderate cost. The university and related fields.
What it reported doing in 2009
Provided an opportunity for men and women from diverse educational, occupational, cultural, ethnic and age backgrounds to obtain a quality legal education at a moderate cost.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Accountability: 81
- Sustainability: 50
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 7.2%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.66; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.37; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 25.5%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $212K · 18 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.