The San Diego College of Continuing Education Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263305140
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2012
Location
San Diego, CA, USA
Phone
6193881250
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Adult, Continuing Education

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,045,712
Expenses
$3,990,136
Assets
$2,905,982
Liabilities
$690,842

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Neill Kovrig (President)
  • Roma Weaver (Vice President)
  • Dr Tami Foy (CEO/ Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dr Tina King EdD (Director): $334,243 total reported compensation
  • Dr Shakerra Carter EdD (Director): $317,206 total reported compensation
  • Jacqueline Sabanos (Director): $312,883 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 San Diego College of Continuing Education (SDCCE) Foundation exists to support SDCCE in championing equity by fostering innovation, raising funds for scholarships, eliminating barriers to student success, and positively impacting the community at large.

What it reported doing in 2024

The San Diego Continuing Education Foundation (SDCEF) supports the goals of San Diego Continuing Education, which is the adult education, noncredit program within the San Diego Community College District (SDCCD). Continuing Education represents a diverse population of San Diegans and is the oldest and largest noncredit institution in the nation. Some of the primary purposes of SDCEF include: the advancement of education, the instruction and training of individuals in various vocational and academic disciplines, the development of research and education projects, special educational and community service programs, the provision of scholarships to eligible individuals in order to assist them in improving and developing their capabilities, and solicitation and raising of money for the purpose of awarding scholarships and loans to assist students in pursuing an education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

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 a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 61
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 89.5%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd 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; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 56.2%; rating input score 56; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.4%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.73; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.5%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.9% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 20.5% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.6% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.4% of revenue deployed · 89.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $334K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $107K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Independent voting board scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.