Santa Fe Community College Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201594570
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Santa Fe, NM, USA
Phone
5054281855
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,050,823
Expenses
$3,625,078
Assets
$20,988,534
Liabilities
$2,033,212

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHEILA PLUNKETT (PRESIDENT)
  • JEFF SZABAT (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • DANIKA PADILLA (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KELLY MARQUEZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • REBECCA K ROWLEY (BOARD MEMBER): $333,136 total reported compensation
  • NICK TELLES (BOARD MEMBER): $223,626 total reported compensation
  • KELLY MARQUEZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $149,474 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 mission of santa fe community college foundation (sfccf) is to act primarily as a fundraising and advocacy organization to advance the mission of santa fe community college and to supplement resources available to the college and to students.

What it reported doing in 2024

Sfccf activities during the 06/30/2025 tax year furthered the exempt purpose of santa fe community college. Sfccf provided resources for santa fe community college and its students. Through endowed and nonendowed scholarships, sfcc foundation provided approximately 600 scholarships totaling $309,506 to qualifying students for tuition, textbooks and basic life expenses to ensure student success. In addition, sfccf provides financial support for awards, recognition events and special programs for santa fe community college. The organization reimbursed santa fe community college $1,719,034 for expenses. The majority of resources sfccf holds and invests are restricted to the activities of the college by the donors.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 70% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 43% for direct work, and 57% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - 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: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.7%; rating input score 98
  • 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; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 82.4%; rating input score 82; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -18.8%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.79; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $333K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.