Clemson University Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
570426335
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Clemson, South Carolina, United States
Phone
864-656-3311
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$118,572,121
Expenses
$77,839,431
Assets
$1,549,370,771
Liabilities
$423,121,917

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

Leadership & pay

30 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • M KAREN MCCAULEY (PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • JAMES CLEMENTS (CLEMSON UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES CLEMENTS (CLEMSON UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT): $918,732 total reported compensation
  • M KAREN MCCAULEY (PRESIDENT & CEO): $410,209 total reported compensation
  • JOVANNA KING (DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $335,678 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 mission of Clemson University is to serve the citizens of South Carolina and the nation through teaching, research, and service.

What it reported doing in 2024

Capital projects: funding provided in support of the educational, research, and public service mission of clemson university through fundraising efforts for physical plant needs. This includes funding in support of prioritized capital projects and expenditures including renovation of existing facilities, construction of new facilities, and large dollar equipment expenditures related to research and academic programming. The sources for funding for these capital expenditures is through donor giving.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 80% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 89% 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 most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.5%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 77.5%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.49 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 89.5%; rating input score 89; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.7%; rating input score 99; 36th 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; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 34.4%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 19.9; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 63.5% of revenue deployed · 77.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $60.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $919K · 30 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.2M reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 40 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 12 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.