West Hills Community College Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770186793
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Coalinga, CA, USA
Phone
2099350801
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,745,614
Expenses
$1,441,931
Assets
$14,366,979
Liabilities
$243,047

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEN STOPPENBRINK (PRESIDENT/COMM. DIR.)
  • VALERIE KELLER (VICE PRESIDENT/COMM. DIR.)
  • ALEXIS PEREZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KRISTIN CLARK (DIRECTOR-STAFF (TO MID-YR)): $316,897 total reported compensation
  • CARLA TWEED (DIRECTOR-STAFF): $294,254 total reported compensation
  • JAMES PRESTON (DIRECTOR-STAFF): $294,254 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 west hills community college foundation enthusiastically engages residents, corporations, foundations and communities of the san joaquin valley in financial support and advocacy for the west hills community college district. We are entrepreneurial partners with the colleges as we plan and implement programs to build relationships and raise funds.

What it reported doing in 2024

Professional & contract services - this fund helps reimburse the district for staff that are hired to support various programs. This can include staff at lemoore college paid for from the hope fund, mesa staff and tutors, science camp instructors and tutors, and staff helping out with other programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 53% for direct work, and 47% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 67
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.4%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 73.7%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; 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: 99.2%; rating input score 99; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 62.5%; rating input score 62; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 47.5%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.96; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.3% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.4% of revenue deployed · 73.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $317K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.