California State University Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
956123757
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
Phone
5629514810
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,962,254
Expenses
$4,860,824
Assets
$58,018,753
Liabilities
$9,872,954

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GREG SAKS (PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • STEVE RELYEA (PRESIDENT (THRU 2/11/2024))

Highest reported compensation

  • MILDRED GARCIA (CHANCELLOR-EX OFFICIO): $1,119,143 total reported compensation
  • GREG SAKS (PRESIDENT & CEO): $536,933 total reported compensation
  • STEVE RELYEA (PRESIDENT (THRU 2/11/2024)): $536,840 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Established in 1962, the foundation is the central foundation for the California state university (csu) system and serves the office of the chancellor. The foundation exists to support excellence in teaching and learning, and to serve the national, state and regional interests of the university. The csu foundation is committed to enhancing and promoting the csu as a leader of value and quality in higher education.

What it reported doing in 2024

The csu foundation supported the educational and governance activities of the university campuses, through regular meetings of its trustees, presidents, employees, and alumni leaders as well as providing employee recognition.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 87% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 97
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 87
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 96.1%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: $72.27 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.1%; rating input score 99; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.94; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.6%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.1M · 22 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 21 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 22 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.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.