San Marcos University Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330971982
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
San Marcos, CA, USA
Phone
7607503312
Rating
53
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,314,869
Expenses
$5,718,208
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KIM CLARK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • NEAL HOSS (VP FINANCE & ADMIN SERVICES, SECRETARY): $301,364 total reported compensation
  • LINDA HAWK (VP FINANCE & ADMIN SERVICES, SECRETARY): $299,782 total reported compensation
  • KIM CLARK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $192,797 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The san marcos university corporation provides facilities and services that enhance the student experience, build community and support the university mission.

What it reported doing in 2016

The university student union/clarke field house programs and services include the operations of two building facilities which include managing tenants, food operations and multiple vendors for building services and maintenance. The university student union provides employment opportunities for students and a student-ran programming board that develops on campus and off campus student development activities for all csusm students. The above revenues and expenses are not inclusive of rental income or rental expenses. See part viii, line 6.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 72% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 39
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.3%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 74.6%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 11.1%; rating input score 11; 5th 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: 21.8%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.6%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.9% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11.4% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.3% of revenue deployed · 74.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $301K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $607K reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2009 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 11/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.