California State Student Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942311940
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
Phone
5629514025
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Student Services, Organizations of Students

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,764,769
Expenses
$1,884,877
Assets
$3,278,104
Liabilities
$282,885

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Iese Esera (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Joe Nino (Executive Dir.): $192,877 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

CSSA as a student-led organization strives to improve the lives of California State University (CSU) students by advocating for student needs and engaging students in systemwide, state, and federal higher education policy making.

What it reported doing in 2024

1. California State University Shared Governance - CSSA maintains a comprehensive program of shared governance for students engagement with the California State University governance structure. CSSA facilitates student participation on various university committees and workgroups and regular engagement between student leaders and the university administration and CSU Board of Trustees. Students participate in university initiatives and directly engage the CSU administration on systemwide student issues. This program results in student-centered decision making by university leaders, ongoing conversations between student and university leaders, and recognition of student-led initiatives by the board of trustees and administrators. Students are provided with travel, staffing, and leadership opportunities to participate in university system policy making. CSSA enhances and creates opportunities for student representation in university decision making processes, including the recommendation of the Student Trustee candidate for the gubernatorial appointment to the CSU Board of Trustees.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 89% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.4%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 63.1%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6.8%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.74; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.1%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.4% of revenue deployed · 63.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 8 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $193K · 29 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.