California State University Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330579971
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
Phone
5629514627
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,183,586
Expenses
$10,622,394
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • MILDRED GARCIA (CHAIRWOMAN): $1,119,143 total reported compensation
  • GREG SAKS (BOARD MEMBER): $536,933 total reported compensation
  • STEVEN RELYEA (TREASURER (THRU 6/2025)): $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

The California state university institute's purpose is to further the mission of the csu by facilitating centralized financing and investment programs on behalf of the csu system, principally the commercial paper program of the csu.

What it reported doing in 2024

The trustees of the California state university (the "board") utilize a commercial paper ("cp") program for various financing activities through the csu institute (the "institute"), an auxiliary organization of the csu.to fund capital improvements during construction periods, the institute initially issues commercial paper to finance various campus and auxiliary capital outlay projects. During this fiscal year, the institute facilitated short-term financing of $71.1 million. In january 2025, csu board of trustee approved changes of the csu commercial paper program, and starting march 2025, the csu began issuing commercial paper directly rather than through the institute. In june 2025, institute board of directors approved the dissolution of the institute, and the remaining cash related the commercial paper was transffered to the csu. The loss on dissolution has been reported as a special item in the institute's 2025 financial statements in accordance with gasb statement no. 69.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.

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: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 31
  • Sustainability: 5
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.5%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: Limited
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • 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: -71.8%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.6% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.2% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $10.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.1M · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $1.1M reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

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: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.