Central Piedmont Community College Foundation
Legal name: Central Piedmont Community College Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 560890420
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Charlotte, NC, US
- Phone
- 704.330.6869
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $12,322,909
- Expenses
- $10,697,623
- Assets
- $106,776,959
- Liabilities
- $1,367,505
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
37 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- LISA SCHLACHTER (VP, INST ADVMT): $234,202 total reported compensation
- VANESSA STOLEN (AVP, INST, ADVMT): $143,227 total reported compensation
- JESSICA BOYCE (ASSISTANT SECRETARY): $62,358 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 support Central Piedmont Community College and its students through philanthropy, fostering student achievement, empowering faculty and staff, and strengthening academic and training programs that shape the future of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg region.
What it reported doing in 2024
The central piedmont foundation engages donor support at all levels to provide the college with the resources required to respond to current and emerging priorities and needs of its students and the community. Gifts to the foundation provide critical resources to sustain the college's essential operations and core commitments to support student success. With foundation funding, the college also encourages, develops, and recognizes excellence among its faculty and staff. The college's center for teaching and learning excellence provides professional development to ensure that faculty knowledge and skills evolve to the highest levels to meet the ever-changing needs of students. Funding is further utilized for campus and auxiliary services, facilities, and maintenance to ensure an outstanding on-campus experience. Through the funding of various program services, the foundation continues to ensure faculty, staff, and students have an ideal environment for teaching, learning, and growing to facilitate a transformational experience for all students.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 99% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 87
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 79
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 89.1%; rating input score 89
- Program expense ratio: 91.5%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: $21.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- 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: 13.2%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.98; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.4%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -3.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 89.1% of revenue deployed · 91.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 33 of 33 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $9.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $234K · 37 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 59/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.