Arizona State University Research Park Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
860488828
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Phone
4809050770
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
University or Technological Institute

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,528,109
Expenses
$8,559,664
Assets
$85,894,079
Liabilities
$16,790,244

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR MORGAN OLSEN (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • JOHN LEWIS (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR MORGAN OLSEN (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR): $1,167,038 total reported compensation
  • LISA LOO (DIRECTOR): $655,042 total reported compensation
  • DR KYLE SQUIRES (DIRECTOR): $618,653 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 acquire interests in real property, develop such property as a research park, and promote and support research activities in coordination with Arizona state university.

What it reported doing in 2024

The research park has 28 ground leases in effect, with a total of 26 completed buildings. The park houses tenants oriented to education, research, and miscellaneous other business endeavors.the park is 96% leased, with 5 acres remaining available for lease. Revenues from the research park are used by asu to support that instituition's various activities, including research.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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 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: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.7%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 97.5%; rating input score 97
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 62.5%; rating input score 62; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 41.1%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.03; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.9%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.7% of revenue deployed · 97.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.2M · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $926K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.