Community College Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 680016439
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Sacramento, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9164185100
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $6,597,944
- Expenses
- $6,273,446
- Assets
- $5,710,815
- Liabilities
- $1,138,594
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- NANETTE FOWLER (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- VERONICA GALVEZ (PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $117,224 total reported compensation
- INGRID JIMENEZ (COO): $111,493 total reported compensation
- NANETTE FOWLER (PRESIDENT & CEO): $92,199 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 community college foundation is to be the provider of choice to improve the quality of life for at-risk and underserved populations through direct services and strategic partnerships.
What it reported doing in 2024
Foster youth tax program promoted free tax preparation and filing among foster youth. February through october 2025, we filed 343 returns resulting in $649,000 in refunds.the fostering resiliency project (frp) is a healing-centered, community-powered mentoring initiative rooted in south los angeles, designed to empower black youth ages 1224 in foster care. Born out of a commitment to disrupt cycles of trauma, frp connects system-impacted youth with culturally grounded mentors who walk alongside them on a journey of healing, personal growth, and self-determination.the healthy relationships programserves current and former foster youth ages, 14+ and focuses on building and maintaining healthy relationships (of all kinds) in a caring, non-judgmental space.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 75
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 45
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 82.8%; rating input score 83
- Program expense ratio: 86.9%; rating input score 87
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 4.9%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.91; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -3% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 82.8% of revenue deployed · 86.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $5.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $117K · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.