Arkansas Tech University Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
710561120
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Russellville, AR, USA
Phone
4799680400
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,637,835
Expenses
$8,392,362
Assets
$64,632,279
Liabilities
$10,425,211

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • RUSSELL JONES (DIRECTOR EX): $427,937 total reported compensation
  • PHILLIP B FISHER (DIRECTOR): $165,522 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 foundation provides educational support through the granting of scholarship funds to be distributed by Arkansas tech university based on academic department and committee selections. The foundation also provides other institutional support to Arkansas tech university for the operation of its educational programs.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation provided a vast array of support to the university in the form of contributions and grants to academic, administrative and athletic departments as well as providing scholarship funds for student recipients. The foundation made contributions to the university for the purchases of computers and related equipment, furnishings, general supplies and construction of additional facilities and renovation and upgrade of existing facilities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 94.1%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 2nd 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: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • 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: -48.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.7; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.8%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.4% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $7.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $428K · 24 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.