California Credit Union Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 931738634
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Glendale, CA, USA
- Phone
- 8182915533
- Rating
- 71
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $202,234
- Expenses
- $201,769
- Assets
- $465
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARVEL FORD (PRESIDENT)
- PATRICK ZARIFIAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- STEVEN O'CONNELL (DIRECTOR): $1,191,415 total reported compensation
- PATRICK ZARIFIAN (VICE PRESIDENT): $498,178 total reported compensation
- JILL VASANT (DIRECTOR): $440,926 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The California credit union foundation works to strengthen the financial well-being of our communities by supporting non-profit partners effecting meaningful change across southern California. Through grants, sponsorships, in-kind support, and active volunteer participation, we are focused on improving lives and empowering our communities to thrive for generations to come.
What it reported doing in 2024
Education is the cornerstone of a healthy community. As a foundation associated with a credit union created to serve educators, we provide grants to help teachers and schools thrive in their communities, support and inspire their students, and recognize their commitment to learning.financial literacy is a key building block to financial freedom. We invest in educational programs that build financial wellness for youth and adults across our communities, providing meaningful, accessible resources for long-term financial empowerment.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Affiliate-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 93% of its reported program spending out as 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 85
- Transparency & Controls: 63
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 29
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 89.2%; rating input score 89
- Program expense ratio: 89.4%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: $16.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 2nd 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: 68.8%; rating input score 69; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.2%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 103.8%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 89.2% of revenue deployed · 89.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $180K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.2M · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 17 of 19 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 8 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 8 not reported.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.