Association of University Research Parks

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
860550311
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Tucson, AZ, USA
Phone
5205292524
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,166,934
Expenses
$1,055,094
Assets
$1,327,265
Liabilities
$392,216

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LEAH BURTON (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • ERIN KOSHUT (PRESIDENT)
  • ALLISON MADDEN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • VICTORIA PALMER (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • VICTORIA PALMER (CEO): $172,340 total reported compensation
  • BRIAN DARMODY (CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER): $131,534 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Fostering innovation, commercialization and economic growth in a global economy through university, industry and government partnerships.

What it reported doing in 2024

Bioparks/bio health caucus (bhc): this program is designed for those interested in lifesciences and bio-based placemaking. This 1.5 day program gathers like-minded lifescience professionals on discussions running deep into the direction and impact of the bio science industry, funding opportunities, plus recipients of eda and nsf competitions, and biomanufacturing in space. Attendance is approximately 60 people and is location is held in conjunction with the global network of the biotechnology innovation organization internationbal convention (bio).

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.4%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 62.3%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.6%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.26; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28.8%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.4% of revenue deployed · 62.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $657K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $172K · 20 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.