Rogue Community College Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
930777701
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Grants Pass, OR, USA
Phone
5419567327
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,123,395
Expenses
$1,611,664
Assets
$20,871,037
Liabilities
$2,366,129

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JUAN RIVERA (Vice President)
  • ANDY LINERUD (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • CASS SINCLAIR (Executive Dir.): $28,410 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 rogue community college foundation (rccf) was established to support and promote the educational, scientific, and charitable activities of rogue community college (rcc). The foundation accomplishes its purpose by fostering community interest in the broadening of educational opportunities, soliciting and developing grants and gifts, investing and managing funds and acquiring and disposing of real and personal property on behalf of rcc. These funds are used to provide educational opportunities for student success, support for college programs, faculty advancement, instructional enhancement, campus enrichment. The foundation also serves as a citizen advisory group to the board of education of the rcc district.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation provided grants for adademic enhancement projects enabling the rcc staff, faculty and students to access and expand education and cultural opportunities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 90% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 89
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 35.1%; rating input score 35
  • Program expense ratio: 66.7%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.12 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 73.7%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.95; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.8%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 35.1% of revenue deployed · 66.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $28K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 49/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.