California State University Dominguez Hills Toro Auxiliary Partners

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
952543028
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Carson, CA, USA
Phone
3102433306
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$30,629,833
Expenses
$34,444,567
Assets
$22,376,957
Liabilities
$14,344,386

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TRANITRA AVERY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • THOMAS PARHAM PHD (DIRECTOR): $587,134 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL SPAGNA PHD (DIRECTOR): $572,616 total reported compensation
  • WILLIAM FRANKLIN PHD (DIRECTOR): $425,804 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

California state university, dominguez hills toro auxiliary partners ("tap")'s mission is to support California state university, dominguez hills in fulfilling their mission. To fulfill this mission, tap pursues a wide range of opportunities in the areas of developing and administering research and educational grants and contracts; conducting the bookstore, food service, and vending machine operations on the campus; developing land and commercial enterprises; administering various educationally related functions, special programs, and other activities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Toro auxiliary partners (tap) provides fiscal services for grants and contracts. These grants and contracts which are received from outside sources including the united states government, the state of California agencies as well as from private foundations, fund various projects. These projects include funding research in numerous areas as well as providing training and support for students studying to become teachers, social workers, and other professionals. Other grants encourage and work with first generation, under represented students to attend college as well as provide support in obtaining their baccalaureate and post baccalaureate degrees.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 76% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 90% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.4%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 83%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 47.6%; rating input score 48; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12.5%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.65; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.64; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.3%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.4% of revenue deployed · 83% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 21 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $28.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $587K · 26 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $456K reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 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: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.