Queens College Special Projects Fundinc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911917512
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2008
Location
Flushing, NY, USA
Phone
7189975000
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Philanthropy, Charity, Voluntarism Promotion

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,927,678
Expenses
$7,323,796
Assets
$45,473,603
Liabilities
$58,260,354

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • FRANK WU (PRESIDENT)
  • JENNIFER JARVIS (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • FRANK WU (PRESIDENT): $598,715 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER JARVIS (VICE PRESIDENT): $255,762 total reported compensation
  • JOSEPH LOUGHREN (TREASURER): $253,339 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 fund's primary exempt purpose is to support, promote, and foster the educational mission of its parent organization, queens college of the city university of New York.

What it reported doing in 2024

Queens college special project fund's primary exempt activity is to hold and operate a residence hall for the benefit of the student of the queens college of the city university of New York. The residence hall consists of a student housing facility designed to house 506 students, an 89 car parking garage, and other amenities. The facilities have also been used to hold conferences that support the educational mission of queens college of the city university of New York.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 32
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 96.7%; rating input score 97
  • 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd 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: -5.7%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.21; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.28; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.8%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $599K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.