Ywca Gla Urban Campus Development Corp
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 270927029
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Phone
- 2133652991
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,459,081
- Expenses
- $3,515,731
- Assets
- $69,443,142
- Liabilities
- $18,411,958
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KYMBERLY GARRETT (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- LORI CARMONA (SECRETARY): $353,042 total reported compensation
- RUBY YUEN (FORMER TREASURER/CFO): $109,338 total reported compensation
- JOANNE MATHEW (CFO): $32,430 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Support the ywca greater los angeles in building, maintaining and operating the building at 1020 s. Olive st.
What it reported doing in 2024
The urban campus building was created to replace old and outdated program service facilities, many of which were built in the 1920s. The building brings together all residents of the program under one roof (formerly housed at the hollywood studio club facility located in hollywood, and the case hotel located in downtown los angeles). The building contains all medical and supportive services, as well as the ywca gla administrative offices on the 7th floor. The urban campus building is specifically designed to improve trainee success by removing barriers and facilitating a more streamlined service delivery model. The campus has a capacity of 400 residential beds. The campus serves as a prototype that can be replicated in other urban centers around the country.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.
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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 69
- Transparency & Controls: 68
- Accountability: 88
- Sustainability: 79
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 70%; rating input score 70
- Program expense ratio: 89.9%; rating input score 90
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 21.2%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 19.75; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.1%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -4.8% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -3.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 70% of revenue deployed · 89.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $353K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $218K reported
- Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 2 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.