Foundation for a College Education

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770401635
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
East Palo Alto, CA, USA
Phone
6503225048
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,881,796
Expenses
$1,888,201
Assets
$5,149,797
Liabilities
$920,037

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ELIZABETH WELLS (EXEC DIRECTOR): $180,200 total reported compensation
  • ASRA HUSSAIN (EMPLOYEE): $115,525 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Fce's mission is to increase the number of first-generation, low-income students of color from east palo alto, ca and surrounding communities who graduate with a degree from a four-year college or university. Fce was founded out of a desire to improve the social and econcomic conditions of east palo residents. Fce's belief was education is a powreful tool for the individual, family and community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Other program services descriptionmeta summer academy programthe meta summer academy program provides externs the opportunity to learn about the day-to-day operations of one of the world's leading social media networks by being part of a dynamic workforce. Externs work closely with meta's mentors in their respective capacities to gain real-world work experience and on-the-job skills that will help propel them into successful careers. The program's goal is to inspire and motivate young people to achieve economic success, stability, and mobility through skills development and early career exploration in the tech industry.student and family eventsfce brings their entire community of staff, families and students together to meet each other and celebrate the successes of the students supported by the programs offered. These events also include community partners, donors and alums that build support for the organization and take great pride in its impact on the community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. 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: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.1%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 68.9%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 26th 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: Limited
  • 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: 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: -0.3%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.73; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.7%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.8% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.1% of revenue deployed · 68.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $180K · 23 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.