CUNY School of Professional Studies Foundation

Legal name: Cuny School of Professional Studies Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
452579691
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2010
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
6466648670
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$442,679
Expenses
$393,516
Assets
$1,029,923
Liabilities
$37,303

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDREA BROWN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF DEVT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LISA BRAVERMAN (DEAN): $413,164 total reported compensation
  • GARRETT MCGUIRE TABB (DIRECTOR OF BUDGET AND FIN): $212,211 total reported compensation
  • ANDREA BROWN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF DEVT): $48,516 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 CUNY SPS Foundation operates exclusively for the charitable purpose of supporting the CUNY School of Professional Studies. The Board exists to enhance public understanding and recognition of CUNY SPS, to promote the School’s mission, and to champion the dedicated and hard-working students we serve. The Board continuously explores new fundraising opportunities for CUNY SPS that will further the commitment to our students by promoting the educational and charitable purposes of the School.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation is operated exclusively for the charitable purpose of supporting the school of professional studies, aconstituent unit of the city university of New York, by disbursing scholarships and awards to eligible students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% 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 - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.5%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 85.9%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 80th 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.1%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.62; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 56.6%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 78.5% of revenue deployed · 85.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $338K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $413K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.