Csusb Philanthropic Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
452255077
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Bernadino, CA, USA
Phone
9095375918
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,802,344
Expenses
$6,401,719
Assets
$89,177,520
Liabilities
$2,232,571

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

Leadership & pay

33 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TOMAS D MORALES (BOARD PRESIDENT (CSUSB PRESIDENT))
  • ROBERT J NAVA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CSUSB VP OF ADVA)
  • PAZ OLIVEREZ (VICE PRESIDENT, STUDENT AFFAIRS)
  • ROBIN PHILLIPS (VICE PRESIDENT, HUMAN RESOURCES)
  • DAVID DUFAULT-HUNTER (VICE PRESIDENT, STRATEGIC ENROLLMENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • TOMAS D MORALES (BOARD PRESIDENT (CSUSB PRESIDENT)): $557,015 total reported compensation
  • DR RAFIK MOHAMED (DIRECTOR (PROVOST & VP OF ACADEMIC AFFAFAIRS)): $378,657 total reported compensation
  • SAMUEL SUDHAKAR (TREASURER/ASSISTANT SECRETARY): $349,222 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 csusb philanthropic foundation is a non-profit corporation that raises and manages gifts from individuals, foundations and corporations for the benefit of csusb. The foundation is comprised of business and civic leaders who care about csusb and who advance its mission by seeking and securing private support for all its programs. Overseen by the board of directors and staffed by a team of advancement professionals who are university employees, the foundation administers and records all gifts in accordance with donors' wishes.

What it reported doing in 2024

Scholarships - coordinate scholarship donations with the student awarded scholarships.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 44% for direct work, and 56% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 89
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.9%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 92.9%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.8%; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 62.5%; rating input score 62; 10th 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: Fail
    • 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: 50%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.93; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.9% of revenue deployed · 92.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 32 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $5.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $557K · 33 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.