Ventura County Community Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 770165029
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Camarillo, CA, USA
- Phone
- 8059880196
- Rating
- 89
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Community Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $25,734,850
- Expenses
- $19,562,314
- Assets
- $250,294,120
- Liabilities
- $34,656,564
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- VANESSA BECHTEL (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
- BONITA GILLES (VICE-PRESIDENT AND CFOO)
- GARY BYRNE (VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- VANESSA BECHTEL (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $382,680 total reported compensation
- BONITA GILLES (VICE-PRESIDENT AND CFOO): $306,564 total reported compensation
- MICHAEL SILACCI (CHIEF PHILANTHROPIC OFFICER): $236,386 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Make Ventura County a better place to live.
What it reported doing in 2024
The ventura county community foundation is proud to offer below-market rent for thirteen nonprofits in ventura county. Nonprofit tenants include: economic development collaborative of ventura county, gold coast veterans foundation, casa of ventura, make-a-wish tri-counties, interface children and family, services/ 2-1-1 ventura county, womens economic ventures, vista real public charter, southern California association of governments (scag), the better business bureau, future labs, and farm to school.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 77% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - 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 reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 94
- Transparency & Controls: 78
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 79
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 92.4%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: $37.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd 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: 95.5%; rating input score 96; 25th 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 24%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.79; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.9%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 92.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $18.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $383K · 21 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $886K reported
- Consistency: 38 of 40 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 249 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 246 filed related-organization links
- 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: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.