Foundation for the Seattle Colleges

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205077956
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2069346325
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Reported finances

Revenue
$12
Expenses
$1,201,195
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Traci Russell (Executive Director)
  • Bill Grinstein (Chair & President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Traci Russell (Executive Director): $4,497 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Foundation for the Seattle Colleges exists to advance fundraising efforts for the Seattle Community College District. We seek to attract financial resources which support students so they may be successful; maintain the quality and deepen the expertise of our faculty and staff and sustain an array of educational programs using state-of-the-art equipment and technology in modern facilities.

What it reported doing in 2023

Pacific Tower is Seattle College's newest home for health education programs and a dynamic hub for some of the most vital and innovative community nonprofits. Pacific Tower fosters an exciting model for cross-organizational collaboration in health care, education, social services, and job creation. Through management of State capital funding, federal tax credits, and local government contributions, the Foundation for Seattle Colleges plays a critical, time limited, supporting role with several other partners.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 3
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 94.2%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10,009,858.3%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.4%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.3% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -39% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.2% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $4K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2014 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.