Emma Eccles Jones Endowment for Excellence at the David Eccles School Of

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
932337573
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Phone
8015855336
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$921,332
Expenses
$1,375,510
Assets
$25,495,365
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • TAYLOR RANDALL (CHAIR): $1,400,410 total reported compensation
  • JONATHAN BROGAARD (DIRECTOR): $560,763 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL LEWIS (TREASURER): $300,162 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 the emma eccles jones endowment for excellence at the david eccles school of business is to provide financial support to the school as it strives to advance innovation through transformative research and to prepare students with the knowledge, integrity, and entrepreneurial mindset needed to create meaningful impact in business and society.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization is in its initial years of operations and formed an endowment fund to provide financial support to the university of Utah and the david eccles school of business. With advance innovation through transformative research, students will be prepared with the knowledge, integrity, and entrepreneurial mindset needed to create meaningful impact in business and society.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 52
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 58.2%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 62.5%; rating input score 62; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • 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: -49.3%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 18.54; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 42.6%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 200% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -185.8% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69% of revenue deployed · 58.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $800K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.4M · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $472K reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.