Foundation of Yakima Valley College
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 911028928
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Yakima, WA, USA
- Phone
- 5095744645
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community or Junior Colleges
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,688,222
- Expenses
- $740,293
- Assets
- $14,672,877
- Liabilities
- $704,737
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PAUL MCDONALD (Vice President)
- MARY SUNDQUIST (President)
Highest reported compensation
- STACEY KAUTZ (EXECUTIVE DIR.): $46,780 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 Foundation is organized exclusively for charitable and educational purposes. Our main focus is awarding scholarships to students, yearly awards for faculty/staff and assisting in the promotion and support of Yakima Valley College educational programs.
What it reported doing in 2024
Awarding scholarships to students is our main focus and our largest expenditure. We have awarded over $10 million in scholarships to approximately 9000 students in the 48 years we have been in existence. The Foundation also raised matching funds for the SBCTC Exceptional Faculty Program in 1998. $350,000 was matched by the State of WA to make awards available yearly to faculty working at Yakima Valley College (YVC). 98% of the total expenses were spent on scholarships and awards. The revenue we generate yearly comes from donors who want to establish scholarships with us and the investment income generated by those donations. We require a $25,000 donation to set up a perpetual scholarship whereby we only award the income from the prior year and keep initial donation intact. We charge a 0.5%-1.5% administrative fee yearly to pay for administrative costs in our office. The fees charged are based on prior year's performance and income generated. We also accept donations where the donor wants the whole donation to be awarded and is charged a 3% one-time fee on the initial donation with no investment income generated. The Foundation teamed up with the college and created an emergency fund for studentsThe Student Success Fund. The funds cover unexpected costs that come up that would prevent a student from attending their classes such as rent, utilities, car repairs, groceries, etc. Our Foundation has been given millions of dollars by incredible people who want to further the educations of students who wouldn't be able to attend college if not for the scholarship. A list of our scholarships with their criteria is available at yvcc.edu/scholarships.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Investment-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 78% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 62
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 84
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 54.1%; rating input score 54
- Program expense ratio: 96.6%; rating input score 97
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 56.1%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 19.82; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.3%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 54.1% of revenue deployed · 96.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $715K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $47K · 19 people listed
- Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 54/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.