Springfield Technical Community College Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 222612044
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Springfield, MA, USA
- Phone
- 4137554473
- Rating
- 65
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community or Junior Colleges
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $553,887
- Expenses
- $247,749
- Assets
- $8,846,693
- Liabilities
- $11,909
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
26 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Dr John Cook (Secretary/College President)
- Dr Karen L Walker (Executive Director Thru 01/25)
- Jennifer Brown (President)
- Dr Jacqueline Johnson (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Dr John Cook (Secretary/College President): $401,660 total reported compensation
- Jennifer DeForge (DIRECTOR/ASSOC. PROF. AT STCC): $192,452 total reported compensation
- Anthony Rondinelli (Director/Professor at STCC): $132,403 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Help springfield technical community college meet its goals and commitment to provide superior educational opportunities in the community. The foundation accomplishes its mission through fundraising, promoting the college as a community resource, and by securing and managing private resources, planned gifts, and donations to support special projects.
What it reported doing in 2024
Funds of the foundation are used to provide student support and scholarships, instructional infrastructure and technology, and college and community programs to meet the region's workforce and economic development needs.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 47
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 88
- Sustainability: 82
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 41.3%; rating input score 41
- Program expense ratio: 56.3%; rating input score 56
- Fundraising efficiency: $15.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
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; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 55.3%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 35.71; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 71.3%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -7.1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 41.3% of revenue deployed · 56.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 21 of 24 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $139K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $402K · 26 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 3 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 41/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 51/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.