Uc Riverside Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 237433570
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Riverside, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9518276291
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $20,941,494
- Expenses
- $17,527,995
- Assets
- $323,830,573
- Liabilities
- $2,312,778
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
39 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOHNNY CRUZ (INTERIM PRESIDENT (4/30- 8/15/2025))
- MONIQUE DOZIER (PRESIDENT (THRU 2/14/2025))
Highest reported compensation
- KIM A WILCOX (EX-OFFICIO TRUSTEE (THRU 6/30/2025)): $748,088 total reported compensation
- MONIQUE DOZIER (PRESIDENT (THRU 2/14/2025)): $424,916 total reported compensation
- JOHNNY CRUZ (INTERIM PRESIDENT (4/30- 8/15/2025)): $301,770 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 educational, research and public functions and programs of the riverside campus of the university of California.
What it reported doing in 2024
The foundation receives, records and manages gifts from individuals, corporations, organizations and foundations for the sole benefit of uc riverside in accordance with donors' wishes. The foundation pays a percentage of gifts received, referred to as gift fees, and a percentage of endowment earnings, known as endowment fees, to uc riverside to offset the campus costs of administering and carrying out the terms of the endowment and to help support costs of the campus and in particular those related to advancement. The foundation also sweeps income earned from cash held for current restricted funds to uc riverside.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 79% 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
STRONG - 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: 88
- Transparency & Controls: 72
- Accountability: 89
- Sustainability: 86
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 97.5%; rating input score 98
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th 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: 96.8%; rating input score 97; 31st 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: 16.3%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 18.48; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.4%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 30 of 31 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $17.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $748K · 39 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $213K reported
- Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 3 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: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.