Uc Santa Barbara Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237314834
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Phone
8058933100
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$106,625,932
Expenses
$47,378,459
Assets
$619,874,994
Liabilities
$27,027,292

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

Leadership & pay

82 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DR HENRY T YANG (Chancellor): $806,525 total reported compensation
  • DR FRANCESCO BULLO (TRUSTEE (AS OF 7/1/2024)): $588,337 total reported compensation
  • DR DAVID MARSHALL (TRUSTEE): $544,375 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 uc santa barbara foundation actively works to further the goals of the university of California, santa barbara. The foundation seeks to maintain and nurture the university's quality and distinction. On behalf of the campus, the foundation raises and administers funds that support ucsb's objectives of teaching, research, and public service. The foundation also provides counsel and general assistance to the campus, its students, faculty, and staff.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation raises, records and manages gifts from individuals, corporations, organizations and foundations for the sole benefit of uc santa barbara in accordance with donors' wishes. The foundation pays a percentage of awards received, referred to as gift fees, and a percentage of endowment earnings, known as endowment fees, to uc santa barbara to reimburse for personnel services and use of facilities provided to the foundation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 93
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46.6%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 95.2%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: $46.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 28th 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; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 91.5%; rating input score 91; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • 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: 55.6%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.08; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.7%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 46.6% of revenue deployed · 95.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 75 of 82 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $45.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $807K · 82 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.