University Union Operation of California State University Sacramento

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510140156
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9162786734
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
University or Technological Institute

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$19,605,144
Expenses
$17,016,639
Assets
$27,988,813
Liabilities
$2,309,618

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BILL OLMSTED (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • SHAWKI MOORE THRU 225 (PRESIDENT'S DESIGNEE/DIRECTOR)
  • NIKKI KHAMSOUKSAY AS OF 225 (PRESIDENT'S DESIGNEE/DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANIESHA MITCHELL AS OF 924 (VP OF STUDENT AFFAIRS/DIRECTOR): $335,109 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER HARRIS (CFO DESIGNEE/DIRECTOR (THRU 3/25)): $274,919 total reported compensation
  • BILL OLMSTED (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $273,632 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 provide services to the university students, staff, faculty and administrators of California state university, sacramento and their guests while enhancing the pursuit of their educational mission. The university union and the well use their facilities, programs, and services to support community engagement and the vital role community engagement plays in teaching and learning at sacramento state.

What it reported doing in 2024

The facilities of university union operation of California state university, sacramento inc. (union well, inc.), the university union and the well, are community centers for the university. The university union and the well uses their facilities, programs, and services to support community engagement and the vital role community engagement plays in teaching and learning at sacramento state. The university union serves all members, which includes the student body, faculty, administration staff, alumni and guests. The well services the entire campus community and a limited population of non-campus community members via a membership program. They are more than just buildings. They also provide services and programs which together represent a well-considered plan for community life at the university. Both facilities provide services, conveniences and amenities to its members in their daily life on the campus while providing an environment in which its members can get to know and understand one another through informal association outside the classroom. The university union and the well are a valuable part of the educational program of the campus. The university union and the well's intent is to integrate free-time activities with education. Their programs train students for social and leadership responsibilities by providing opportunities for experience in group activities, democratic procedures, and leadership. They also provide cultural, social, recreational, and wellness programs. They encourage activities which give maximum opportunity for self-realization and personal growth. The university union and the wellsupport the view that what a student does educationally in the hours outside the classroom is of major importance and that they can assist in giving an additional dimension to education; vastly expanding the time and the means through which the univeristy educates.additionally, the university union and the well provide programming opportunities that engage the regional community, and most importantly, students of all ages, and expose them to the campus with events such as concerts, exhibits, symposiums, lectures, fun runs, sober grad nights, proms, leadership training and film series. Through its services, programs, and facilities, the university union and the well intend to serve as a unifying force in the educational life at the university and commit to engaging the community by building enduring partnerships to strengthen and enrich the region and promote a strong university identity.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 93% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 76.8%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 11th 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: 13.2%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.64; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.4%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62% of revenue deployed · 76.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $13.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $335K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $2M reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 4 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.