College of the Desert Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 953829219
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Palm Desert, CA, USA
- Phone
- 7607732561
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $7,787,829
- Expenses
- $3,816,767
- Assets
- $69,984,882
- Liabilities
- $672,866
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
35 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Catherine Wilkinson Abbott (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Catherine Wilkinson Abbott (Executive Director): $243,883 total reported compensation
- Edward Hernandez (Development Director): $168,765 total reported compensation
- Patricia Kirstien Renna (Financial Officer): $161,427 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 mission of the College of the Desert Foundation is to enhance the quality of education by advancing the College of the Desert through building relationships, securing philanthropic support and stewarding assets.
What it reported doing in 2024
The EDGE/plEDGE initiative represents a powerful commitment to the educational and economic future of regional students, the college, and the community. During the 2024-2025 academic year, plEDGE programs provided tuition-free education with textbook support for students from underserved populations at the college. The funding is used to provide plEDGE last-dollar tuition and fee scholarships, and textbook support to promote retention and success and economic improvement for underserved Coachella Valley student populations.Many of the underrepresented students served by the College and Foundation are already Pell and California College Promise Grant eligible. While these programs can offset most of the cost for postsecondary education at the college, the student must cover residual costs. In some cases, the remaining costs become a barrier to full-time postsecondary education. The plEDGE support removes that barrier by providing enough funding to offset residual costs for each student.The Foundation's and College's commitment to EDGE/plEDGE program is part of a collaborative effort to close the education gap in our service area, promote postsecondary education equity in our community, and improve quality of life and economic prosperity in the region.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 49% for direct work, and 51% for 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 83
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 84.4%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 88%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $15.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 51; 51st 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: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 44th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 51%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 18.34; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 18.4%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 84.4% of revenue deployed · 88% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 26 of 26 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $244K · 35 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $311K reported
- Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 51/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.