Delaware County Community College Educational Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232143790
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Media, PA, USA
Phone
6103595105
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community or Junior Colleges

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,272,405
Expenses
$1,077,506
Assets
$9,923,688
Liabilities
$125,948

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR MARTA CRONIN (COLLEGE PRESIDENT)
  • LAURA CHISHOLM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR MARTA CRONIN (COLLEGE PRESIDENT): $330,862 total reported compensation
  • LAURA CHISHOLM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $138,807 total reported compensation
  • ERIC LEAL (VP FOR FINANCE & ADMIN/TREASURER): $113,126 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 Delaware county community college educational foundation provides financial resources to assist the community college in achieving its mission to facilitate learning by providing quality educational programs and services that are student focused, accessible, comprehensive, and flexible to meet the educational needs of the diverse communities it serves.

What it reported doing in 2024

Delaware county community college educational foundation (the foundation) is a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation that is a component unit of Delaware county community college (the college) located in Delaware county, Pennsylvania. The foundation provides financial resources to assist the college in achieving its mission to facilitate learning by providing quality educational programs and services that are student focused, accessible, comprehensive and flexible to meet the educational needs of the diverse communities it serves.the foundation provided assistance of $136,793 to the college during the fiscal year and scholarships totaling $802,073 to 430 students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 86% 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.

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: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.1%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 87.1%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $39.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 52.6%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.21; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.1%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.1% of revenue deployed · 87.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $939K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $331K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.