St Cloud Technical & Community College Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
411791598
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
St Cloud, MN, USA
Phone
3203085980
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,072,241
Expenses
$696,066
Assets
$5,741,948
Liabilities
$18,023

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CARYL TURNOW (PRESIDENT (BEG 7/2024))
  • BRENT BULTEMA (PRESIDENT (END 7/2024))
  • AYAN AMOUD OMAR (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DANIEL LARSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIEL LARSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $184,775 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To support all people, programs, and infrastructures that are strategic priorities of the college by securing the necessary community and financial resources.

What it reported doing in 2024

The st cloud technical and community college foundation (the foundation) exists to support the st cloud technical and community college (the college) by supporting students and programs. The foundation supports the college through capital, technology, and equipment needs for various programs. The foundation awards student scholarships. The foundation awarded 199 scholarships and grants to students in the last fiscal year. Workforce development scholarships - the foundation board raised and secured $15,000 this past year which was a match for the workforce development program. Minnesota legislature created the "workforce development scholarship" program and allocated funds to mnstate colleges. College foundations are required to raise 10% matching funds for scholarships for high demand occupational programs set by the state of Minnesota. The eligible programs/groups are advanced manufacturing, early childhood education, health care services, information technology, and transportation programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 85.4%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $47.44 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th 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: 93.2%; rating input score 93; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • 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: Fail
    • 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: 35.1%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.25; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.9%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63% of revenue deployed · 85.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $594K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $185K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.