Cal Poly Pomona Enterprises
Legal name: Cal Poly Pomona Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 952417645
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Pomona, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9098693154
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $114,528,721
- Expenses
- $103,749,120
- Assets
- $342,206,425
- Liabilities
- $263,023,849
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
35 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JARED CEJA (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
Highest reported compensation
- SORAYA M COLEY (DIRECTOR): $630,326 total reported compensation
- TERRI GOMEZ (DIRECTOR): $475,977 total reported compensation
- YSABEL D TRINIDAD (CHAIR (UNTIL 12/24)): $471,812 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To support the educational mission of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona by providing essential services and resources.
What it reported doing in 2024
University village - the village offers valuable, well-maintained, and furnished accomodations for over 1,200 cal poly pomona students each year. By focusing on interpersonal relationships with its residents, housing services strives to create a safe, respectful and inclusive community. Students engage with a supportive staff and dynamic environment that continually works to adapt to resident needs. The university village prides itself on advancing student success through a holistic, co-curricular education, and student employment opportunities.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 73% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and liabilities are high compared with assets.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 80
- Accountability: 66
- Sustainability: 63
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 77.1%; rating input score 77
- Program expense ratio: 82.4%; rating input score 82
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- 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: 97.8%; rating input score 98; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 41.7%; rating input score 42; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 9.4%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.3; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.77; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.9%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 77.1% of revenue deployed · 82.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 24 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $85.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $630K · 35 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.5M reported
- Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 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: 35 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 24 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.
- Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 42/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.