California History Center Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
880108599
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Cupertino, CA, USA
Phone
4088648987
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$156,997
Expenses
$52,449
Assets
$1,335,641
Liabilities
$5,984

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CECILIE A VAUGHTERS-JOHNSON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARK HEALY (President (FHDA INSTRUCTOR))

Highest reported compensation

  • LORI CLINCHARD (Program Director (FHDA INSTRUCTOR)): $294,949 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 serve as the trustee and steward of the foundation's stocklmeir library and archives, to oversee and administer the center's publications program, to be an advocate for historic preservation on the de anza college campus and in the community at large, and to provide guidance and support to the center and its programs. The mission is accomplished through strategic planning, policy development, community outreach, fundraising, and fiduciary administration that are grounded in the values of community participation and ownership, institutional continuity, credibility, committment, and resonsibility.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization operates a library/archives staffed by a librarian/archivist who is responsible for collection, maintenance and development, and reference/research services in the fields of California studies and California and local/regional history materials such as books and journals (including rare and antiquarian materials), digital and taped audio and video oral history, microfilmed newspaper collections, photographic images, ephemera, clipping files, maps, and manuscript holdings. Resources are available to students and the general public for class projects, independent research, and general inquiries.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 60% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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. 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: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 69.8%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Limited
  • 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 66.6%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 25.47; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 562.4%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8.7% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89% of revenue deployed · 69.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $37K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $295K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.