College of Western Idaho Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271159705
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Nampa, ID, USA
Phone
2085623274
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,125,546
Expenses
$1,992,609
Assets
$16,505,007
Liabilities
$249,246

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mike Pena (President)
  • Alison Patt (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Mark Arstein Chief Development (Officer, Foundation): $194,117 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 Foundation, an Internal Revenue Code ("Code") Section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, supports the mission of the College through the development and creation of resources that will improve and (Continued on Schedule O)(Continued from Form 990, Part III, Line 1) advance the College, its programs, and students. The Foundation raises funds from individuals, companies, foundations, and organizations, and invests and manages gifts in accordance with donors' wishes.

What it reported doing in 2024

The College of Western Idaho Foundation raised and managed Scholarship Funds, Program Support, and private resources for the College of Western Idaho Students and Programs which support the mission and priorities of the College. During the Fiscal year ending June 30, 2025, the Foundation provided scholarship support to the College of Western Idaho, who in turn provided scholarships to 595 students totaling $831,855. The Foundation also provided program support (department support $258,936 and facility support $539,940) totaling $798,876 to the College of Western Idaho.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 17.4%; rating input score 17
  • Program expense ratio: 81.8%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16,482.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 100; 100th 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 82.1%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.28; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.7%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -26.8% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 17.4% of revenue deployed · 81.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $194K · 22 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, 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: 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 17/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.