Cal Poly Humboldt Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
946077724
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Arcata, CA, USA
Phone
7078265200
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)

Reported finances

Revenue
$15,901,704
Expenses
$15,284,888
Assets
$70,524,170
Liabilities
$5,372,316

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL SPAGNA (CAL POLY PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHERIE GORDON (STAFF REPRESENTATIVE THRU 05/25): $369,337 total reported compensation
  • FRANK WHITLATCH (EXEC DIRECTOR & SECRETARY THRU 07/24): $329,506 total reported compensation
  • MIKE FISHER (STAFF REPRESENTATIVE): $299,553 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See schedule othe cal poly humboldt foundation provides expertise, fiduciary oversight and advocacy to increase charitable giving and manage the endowment and other charitable funds. The foundation serves humboldt state university in several ways: 1. Steward assets - ensure that contributions are well invested and used as donors intend.2. Deploy assets - ensure that contributed funds are efficiently distributed and productively used by the university. 3. Raise new assets - engage in the fundraising process in order to increase amount and quality of charitable contributions to the university. 4. Strategic alignment - be familiar with the strategies and directions of the university and provide commentary and feedback to university leadership. 5. Advocacy - serve as spokesperson and ambassadors for the university.

What it reported doing in 2024

Services include forwarding earnings to 189 scholarship funds and 76 campus programs in compliance with endowment restrictions; administering 355 charitable accounts dedicated to university purposes; and managing 291 endowed and 1 non-endowed investment accounts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 85% 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. 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: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.9%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 94.4%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 76.5%; rating input score 76; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.9%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.61; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.9%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.4% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.9% of revenue deployed · 94.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 17 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $14.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $369K · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 6 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.