The Baruch College Fund
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 237039817
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- New York, NY, USA
- Phone
- 6466606668
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Educational Services and Schools - Other
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $24,206,693
- Expenses
- $22,543,549
- Assets
- $339,911,162
- Liabilities
- $3,088,238
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
63 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- LUZ D LIEBESKIND (PRESIDENT)
- RICHARD C PAUL (VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- DR S DAVID WU (PRES. OF BARUCH COLLEGE): $573,341 total reported compensation
- YILDIRAY YILDIRIM (PROFESSOR): $542,330 total reported compensation
- BRUCE WEBER (DEAN): $507,368 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 baruch college fund is an organization engaged in generating, encouraging and promoting the educational welfare of the students of the bernard m. Baruch college of the city university of New York.
What it reported doing in 2024
The fund supports activities through grants to the bernard m. Baruch college of the city university of New York ("the college") for various educational purposes such as the support of the college's theater, publications, faculty, art gallery, and student services. Student services include activities such as the starr career development center, the schwartz communication institute, and the weissman center for international business, which service the entire student body. In addition to grants, the fund pays expenses, including certain compensation supplements, on behalf of the college to enable it to attract and retain the best talent to carry out its educational mission.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, and 55% 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 most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 88
- Transparency & Controls: 58
- Accountability: 99
- Sustainability: 72
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 84.4%; rating input score 84
- Fundraising efficiency: $9.67 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 95%; rating input score 95; 25th 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: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 98.1%; rating input score 98; 31st 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: NotApplicable
- 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: 6.9%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 15.08; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.9%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 84.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 53 of 54 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $19M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $573K · 63 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $661K reported
- Consistency: 39 of 40 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 9 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 37/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.