California State University Los Angeles Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954044252
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3233433550
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,725,766
Expenses
$3,925,970
Assets
$85,505,865
Liabilities
$502,068

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT AVALOS END 012025 (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • OMEL A NIEVES (PRESIDENT)
  • WILLIAM LEWIS END 122024 (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • BERENECEA JOHNSON-EANES (EX-OFFICIO TRUSTEE): $641,686 total reported compensation
  • ROBERT AVALOS END 012025 (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $348,369 total reported compensation
  • QUEEN E KING END 082024 (EX-OFFICIO TRUSTEE): $284,346 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 advance the educational, cultural, scholarly, and creative activities and the role of community service of csula by increasing private funding, responsibly managing donated resources and supporting the university and its diverse and distinct nature.

What it reported doing in 2024

To encourage and promote the scientific, literary, educational, and charitable purposes of California state university, los angeles (the"university") by providing financial assistance through scholarships, grants, gifts, loans, and other means to the university.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 81% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 75
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 79.4%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.63 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • 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: 57.1%; rating input score 57; 9th 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: 31.4%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 21.78; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91% of revenue deployed · 79.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 21 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $642K · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 57/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.