Calcpa Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200978565
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
6505223021
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Adult, Continuing Education

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$524,562
Expenses
$1,462,720
Assets
$3,485,241
Liabilities
$2,784,893

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Denise Froemming (President and CEO)
  • Andrea Cope (Foundation President (through 7-2024))
  • Ruben Davila (Foundation President (eff 7-2024))

Highest reported compensation

  • Denise Froemming (President and CEO): $576,050 total reported compensation
  • Natalie Quan (VP and CFO of Financial Strategy and Business Excellence): $295,134 total reported compensation
  • Heather Collins (Senior Director-DE&I, Pipeline and Engagement): $200,012 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 inspire diverse and talented individuals to become CPAs and empower them to stay in the profession.

What it reported doing in 2024

Student outreach: at the highschool level, calcpa sponsors deca and future business leaders of america events to help inspire next generation to pursue careers in accounting. From community college to cpa is a program offered on community college campuses and virtually across the state that AIDS students in the transition from a two year college and help kickstart their cpa journey. The industry influencer program establishes student representatives on various college campuses with the goal of building stronger relationships with accounting educators and students, as well as promoting the accounting profession and cpa licensure. Calcpa also hosts firm crawl field trips for college students to visit firms, meet partners and personally get a feel for different size firms. In addition, the institute oversees belonging efforts within the cpa profession by managing a mentorship program, connecting students with diverse professionals across the state.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 63% for direct work, and 37% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.4%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 8th 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: 97.3%; rating input score 97; 45th 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; 63rd 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: 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: -178.8%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.38; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.8; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $576K · 23 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 41 of 42 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.