Campus Auxiliary Services New Paltz
Legal name: Campus Auxiliary Services Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 141380310
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- New Paltz, NY, US
- Phone
- 845-257-3034
- Rating
- 61
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Undergraduate College (4-year)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,257,088
- Expenses
- $3,464,019
- Assets
- $18,319,297
- Liabilities
- $2,413,857
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- STELLA TURK (PRESIDENT'S DESIGNEE)
Highest reported compensation
- MICHELE HALSTEAD (CHAIRPERSON): $290,217 total reported compensation
- STELLA TURK (PRESIDENT'S DESIGNEE): $263,780 total reported compensation
- STEVEN DEUTSCH (EXE DIR/SECRETARY/TREASURER): $224,455 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Supporting Campus Life at SUNY New Paltz by providing essential services that enhance the campus experience.
What it reported doing in 2024
Food services provided to students, faculty and staff of the state university of New York at new paltz. The majority of this program's activity involves food/ dining services to students, particularly those residing on the college campus. In addition, food services are also provided for conferences, seminars and other activities intended to enhance and enrich the campus environment.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 85% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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 revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 54
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Accountability: 49
- Sustainability: 73
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 53.8%; rating input score 54
- Program expense ratio: 73%; rating input score 73
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- 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: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 28.6%; rating input score 29; 6th 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: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 34.1%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.29; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 21.2%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -4.4% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 53.8% of revenue deployed · 73% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $290K · 14 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $16M reported
- Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 29/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.