Clemson Alumni Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
576026334
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Clemson, SC, USA
Phone
8646562345
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,009,194
Expenses
$3,879,748
Assets
$21,328,229
Liabilities
$2,739,099

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DEB CONKLIN (PRESIDENT/CHAIR)
  • LEROY W BRASINGTON III (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LEROY W BRASINGTON III (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $256,434 total reported compensation
  • JOHN S BRITTON (DIRECTOR OF PHILANTHROPY): $134,611 total reported compensation
  • DANA C MORGAN (DIRECTOR OF ENGAGEMENT): $133,105 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 enhance the lifelong clemson experience by serving, involving, informing and engaging our alumni, current and future students, and friends of the university.

What it reported doing in 2024

Alumni engagement - involve clemson university alumni in the life of the university and its students with a goal of continued connection and support of the university. Provide support services to individual alumni and alumni chapters and groups via networking, job fairs, and targeted events, accomplished through organized communication, marketing, and other support initiatives.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 70% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 74% for direct work, and 26% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.8%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 72.2%; rating input score 72
  • 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: 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.2%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.5; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.5%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -19% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.8% of revenue deployed · 72.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $256K · 25 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $169K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 10 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.