Eugenio Maria De Hostos Community College Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133116643
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Bronx, NY, USA
Phone
7185186500
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts, Cultural Organizations - Multipurpose

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,865,882
Expenses
$2,369,789
Assets
$22,709,805
Liabilities
$185,071

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • FELIX AROCHO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAISY COCCO DE FILIPPIS PHD (NON-VOTING BOARD MEMBER (EX-OFFICIO)): $423,639 total reported compensation
  • ESTHER RODRIGUEZ-CHARDAVOYNE (NON-VOTING BOARD MEMBER): $366,030 total reported compensation
  • COLETTE ATKINS (NON-VOTING BOARD MEMBER (EX-OFFICIO)): $234,165 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Eugenio maria de hostos community college of foundation is a 501 (c) (3) not-for-profit corporation that operates exclusively for the charitable purpose of supporting eugenio maria de hostos community college of the city university of New York. The foundation encourages assistance through gifts, scholarships, subsidies, endowments, grants, bequests, and other funds.the board of directors directs the management of the operations, property affairs and concerns of the foundation and actively promotes fundrasing activities consistent with the provision of the foundation by-law, as written or amended in the certificate of incorporation. The board of directors makes recommendations concerning the acceptance of monies, grants, securities and any other donations.

What it reported doing in 2024

In fiscal year 2024, the foundation raised over $2 million in funds through grants and various events. All funds raised were allocated towards student scholarships and support of the educational mission of hostos community college.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% 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 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: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.8%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 80%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd 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: 97.5%; rating input score 97; 33rd 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: 38.7%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.58; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.6%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.7% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.8% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.8% of revenue deployed · 80% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $424K · 22 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.