Cal Poly Foundation

Legal name: California Polytechnic State University Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204927897
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
San Luis Obispo, California, USA
Phone
805-756-1111
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$62,571,176
Expenses
$67,383,655
Assets
$467,647,859
Liabilities
$20,222,432

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEFFREY D ARMSTRONG (CEO & UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEFFREY D ARMSTRONG (CEO & UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT): $655,322 total reported compensation
  • CYNTHIA JACKSON-ELMOORE PART YEAR (DIRECTOR): $464,130 total reported compensation
  • MARC BENADIBA (TREASURER): $302,424 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 generate private support that plays a crucial role in building and maintaining Cal Poly's multidisciplinary Learn by Doing educational model.

What it reported doing in 2024

Expenses in support of the educational mission of the university; including instruction, research, maintenance, scholarships and other academic and institutional support.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 47% for direct work, and 53% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.9%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 91.4%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 82.6%; rating input score 83; 30th 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: -7.7%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.94; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.6%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 98.9% of revenue deployed · 91.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 23 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $61.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $655K · 27 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $613K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 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: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 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.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.