Cuesta College Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237225601
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Luis Obispo, CA, USA
Phone
8055463279
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,157,012
Expenses
$3,952,961
Assets
$60,371,632
Liabilities
$2,456,911

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

Leadership & pay

44 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GRIGGER JONES (PRESIDENT)
  • JEFF DARNTON (VICE PRESIDENT/DEVELOPMENT)
  • SCOTT LATHROP (VICE PRESIDENT/MEMBERSHIP)
  • JANICE FONG WOLF (VICE PRESIDENT/ALUMNI RELA)
  • SHANNON HILL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NON-VO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JILL STEARNS (DIRECTOR): $391,453 total reported compensation
  • MELISSA RICHERSON (DIRECTOR - FORMER): $316,736 total reported compensation
  • ELIZABETH CORIA (DIRECTOR - FORMER): $298,298 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 cuesta college foundation supports the excellence of cuesta college by engaging the community and building philanthropic resources. The funds raised and managed by the foundation strengthen college programs, provide educational opportunities, and empower students to succeed.

What it reported doing in 2024

Funds provided to college departments for instructional materials and support of college programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 96% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.9%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 73.6%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.64 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd 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; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.9%; rating input score 84; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 35.8%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 15.27; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.3%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66.9% of revenue deployed · 73.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 26 of 31 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $391K · 44 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.