University of California Merced Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943250114
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Merced, CA, USA
Phone
2092284070
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,710,602
Expenses
$4,567,189
Assets
$42,157,644
Liabilities
$870,678

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

Leadership & pay

48 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • E EDWARD KLOTZBIER (PRESIDENT/CEO)
  • ELIZABETH CARLSON (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JUAN SANCHEZ MUNOZ (EX-OFFICIO MEMBER): $679,099 total reported compensation
  • E EDWARD KLOTZBIER (PRESIDENT/CEO): $387,469 total reported compensation
  • ELIZABETH CARLSON (VICE PRESIDENT): $228,032 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 merced foundation was formed for the purpose of encouraging voluntary private gifts, trusts, and bequests for the benefit of the university of California, merced.

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 merced 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 merced to reimburse for personnel services and use of facilities provided to the foundation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.23; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.2%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 45 of 48 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $4.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $679K · 48 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 47 of 47 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.