Academic Partners Insurance Company

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204687937
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Burlington, VT, USA
Phone
8028645599
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Reported finances

Revenue
$31,764,025
Expenses
$26,083,593
Assets
$114,343,268
Liabilities
$86,384,815

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES M WATSON (DIRECTOR): $1,131,870 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL S COOKSON (MANAGING DIRECTOR): $1,022,783 total reported compensation
  • PAUL NEIMEYER (DIRECTOR): $627,712 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 company is organized and operated for the exclusive purpose of supporting the university of Oklahoma's & its affiliated entities academic, educational, research, clinical care, and indigent care missions. Accordingly, its services are limited to providing professional, general, and other insurance coverage and related services to the university and its affiliates.

What it reported doing in 2024

Academic partners insurance company provides coverage to medical professionals and related hospital entities of the university of Oklahoma, a tax-exempt organization. The insurance coverages provided assist the university and hospital system in stabilizing their insurance costs. The university of Oklahoma is Oklahoma's premier higher education institution, and with its related hospital partner, serves the educational and health care needs of the state and surrounding regions. Academic partners insurance company provides coverage related to liability of faculty physicians, resident physicians, mid-levels and students, as well as a large academic hospital system. Costs associated with providing insurance coverages are in furtherance of the organization's tax-exempt purpose of supporting the university of Oklahoma.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 91% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 26
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.8%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 98.1%; rating input score 98
  • 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 17.9%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.38; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.76; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.1%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.8% of revenue deployed · 98.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $25.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.1M · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $436K reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 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: 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.