Arkansas State University System Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
710489924
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
State University, AR, USA
Phone
8709722775
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$32,061,294
Expenses
$14,808,782
Assets
$191,760,441
Liabilities
$17,075,537

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NICOLE FREY (PRESIDENT)
  • PHILIP JACKSON (FORMER PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • NICOLE FREY (PRESIDENT): $157,071 total reported compensation
  • MELISSA LIVINGSTON (BOARD LIASON): $73,611 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 primary purpose of the Arkansas state university system foundation, inc. (the foundation) is to receive, solicit, accept and hold, administer, invest and disburse any and every kind of property for such education, scientific, literary, research and service activities from individuals and organizations, including foundations, government agencies, and private businesses, to support the corporation's activities, and it shall manage endowments given to the corporation for the benefit of all the Arkansas state university system campuses operations, sites and facilities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Administrative support: the Arkansas state university system foundation, inc. Provides financial assistance to all member campuses of the Arkansas state univeristy system in support of administrative functions like academic affairs, student affairs, residence life, recruiting, counseling, facilities management, advancement, alumni relations, information technology, career management, disability services ad diversity initiatives by supplementing university budgets for supplies and services, travel, equipment, technology, human resources and all other costs related to the university's academic mission.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 74% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 91
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.8%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 98.4%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th 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: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: 53.8%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.95; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.4%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.8% of revenue deployed · 98.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $14.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $157K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 16 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.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.