Association of University Technology Managers Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 363011951
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2029601800
- Rating confidence
- Limited
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $12,031,425
- Expenses
- $10,424,074
- Assets
- $6,724,103
- Liabilities
- $2,559,909
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
24 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- STEPHEN SUSALKA (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
- PAUL ZIELINSKI (FLC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- STEPHEN SUSALKA (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $311,037 total reported compensation
- PAUL ZIELINSKI (FLC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $236,726 total reported compensation
- ELIZABETH FREYN (MEETINGS DIRECTOR): $193,768 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 association was formed in 1989 as a nonprofit professional and educational society to engage in a variety of activities and accomplish a variety of purposes related to technology transfer, commercialization, and innovation. The core purpose of the association is to support and advance knowledge/technology transfer worldwide.
What it reported doing in 2024
Website, databases, social media, information emails, surveys, reports, newsletters and promotional collateral relating to presentations and new advances in technology transfer, such as patents, copyrights and technology innovation. These provide members, the public, policy makers, and media with information to advance their knowledge in the area of technology licensing and commercialization. There are approximately 15,000 readers of autm's insight newsletters, and autm's licensing and salary surveys reach more than 230 universities that submit data, and many others that use the data as a vital resource.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 72
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 47
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- 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; 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: 13.4%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.65; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.38; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 13.8%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $311K · 24 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $302K reported
- Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.