Cal State Fullerton Philanthropic Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330567945
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Fullerton, CA, USA
Phone
6572782786
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Philanthropy, Voluntarism, and Grantmaking Foundations N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$25,909,553
Expenses
$16,836,984
Assets
$238,476,708
Liabilities
$1,231,277

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

Leadership & pay

34 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RONALD S ROCHON (DIRECTOR/PRESIDENT OF CSUF)
  • KIMBERLY SHINER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KIMBERLY SHINER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $313,633 total reported compensation
  • JASON ONO (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $274,028 total reported compensation
  • RONALD S ROCHON (DIRECTOR/PRESIDENT OF CSUF): $235,398 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 actively promote, pursue and steward private support for the advancement of California state university, fullerton.

What it reported doing in 2024

The cal state fullerton philanthropic foundation (csfpf) is an auxiliary organization of California state university, fullerton (the university). Csfpf is organized and operated to receive, hold, invest, and administer philanthropic gifts and grants that benefit the university and support its educational mission. All philanthropic contributions supporting the university are processed and administered by csfpf in accordance with donor intent. These funds support student scholarships (including scholarships for first-generation students), academic and co-curricular programs, faculty support, and campus facilities. Csfpf will continue to advance philanthropic support for university priorities, including student access and success, programmatic initiatives, and capital projects such as landmark hall and the college of engineering and computer science innovation hub, as well as other high-priority initiatives in the coming year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 87
  • Sustainability: 90
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.1%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 86.8%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.5%; rating input score 99; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.5%; rating input score 94; 26th 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: 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: 35%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.16; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.1% of revenue deployed · 86.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 29 of 31 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $14.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $314K · 34 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.