The University Foundation California State University Chico
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 951230865
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Chico, CA, USA
- Phone
- 5308986811
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $18,653,004
- Expenses
- $15,020,987
- Assets
- $152,873,865
- Liabilities
- $4,884,440
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
29 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Ahmad Boura (Board CEO & Secretary, CSUC VP Advancement (End 5/2025))
- Frank Whitlatch (Board CEO & Secretary, Interim CSUC VP Advancement (Beg 4/2025))
- Steve Perez (Board Member, CSUC President)
Highest reported compensation
- Steve Perez (Board Member, CSUC President): $600,032 total reported compensation
- Ahmad Boura (Board CEO & Secretary, CSUC VP Advancement (End 5/2025)): $413,532 total reported compensation
- Leslie Cornick (Board Member, CSUC Provost): $339,307 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 build a culture of philanthropy by harnessing the expertise and passion of our alumni, parents, and friends to raise private support for the education, practical research, and public service that transforms the lives of our students, faculty, staff, and the people we serve.
What it reported doing in 2024
The campus program fund enriches our academic, co-curricular, and community programs by providing faculty and staff with enhanced resources that give students the real-world, team-oriented, and cross-disciplinary experiences they need to graduate work-ready, think creatively, problem solve, and develop productive relationships in their careers and lives. The fund also supports faculty development, college-based programs and projects, and campus organizations that benefit the public through educational, cultural, and social services.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 68% 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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 80
- Sustainability: 84
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 81.4%; rating input score 81
- Program expense ratio: 90.6%; rating input score 91
- Fundraising efficiency: $19.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th 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: 99.4%; rating input score 99; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 82.1%; rating input score 82; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 19.5%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.18; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.6%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 81.4% of revenue deployed · 90.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 23 of 28 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $13.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $600K · 29 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 37 of 38 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: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 5 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.