Southwest Technical College Foundation

Legal name: Swatc Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461233025
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Cedar City, UT, US
Phone
4355862899
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$416,570
Expenses
$343,157
Assets
$1,150,185
Liabilities
$107,722

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRENNAN WOOD (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRENNAN WOOD (PRESIDENT): $281,858 total reported compensation
  • JAMES MULLEANAUX (TRUSTEE): $171,930 total reported compensation
  • WADE ESPLIN (TRUSTEE): $107,494 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 the organization is to provide funding to support the educational purposes of southwest technical college.

What it reported doing in 2024

During fiscal year 6-30-2025, the swatc foundation (dba swatc partners) continued to support the charitable and educational mission of southwest technical college by securing and stewarding private donations and grants for student success initiatives. The foundation received $345,340 in total grants and donations, $48,332 in investment income, and $22,898.25 in services contributed from southwest technical college reflecting strong community and corporate support. A significant portion of these funds$244,430 was awarded as scholarships and direct student support, providing critical financial assistance and expanding access to technical education for students across the college's service region. In addition to scholarships, foundation resources were used to support key community and institutional priorities, including the business and innovation center, equipment for the automotive program, support for the student pantry, and the administration of the first cohort of the empower u program. These efforts demonstrate the foundation's ongoing commitment to removing financial barriers for students while also investing in strategic initiatives that strengthen workforce training and community impact.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 51
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.5%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 85%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd 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; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.6%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.35; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 54.4%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 31.5% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.9% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 73.5% of revenue deployed · 85% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 10 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $292K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $282K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.