Fayetteville State University Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237029901
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Fayetteville, NC, USA
Phone
9106721111
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
University or Technological Institute

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,081,192
Expenses
$3,147,160
Assets
$27,056,577
Liabilities
$6,351,534

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

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MR OMAR BELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MR DARRELL T ALLISON (DIRECTOR): $309,000 total reported compensation
  • DR MONICA LEACH (DIRECTOR): $235,040 total reported compensation
  • MR KENNY SPAYD (DIRECTOR): $230,000 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 raise and disburse funds for programs that will further the educational purposes of fayetteville state university.

What it reported doing in 2024

A. To solicit, receive, hold, manage, and disburse contributions, gifts, grants, bequests, and transfers of funds or property of any nature for the benefit of fayetteville state university, its students, faculty, and staff. To use the name of the university in any way that will benefit and enrich or enlarge upon its facilities and programs in accordance with the direction of the donors and acceptable to the administrative officials of the university.b. To act as trustee, escrow, or disbursing agent with respect to any endowment, gift, grants, contributions, or bequests made for the benefit of fayetteville state university, its students, faculty, and staff, under the terms of the trustor or donor, and to carry on such functions as will accomplish the purpose and intent of the gift, endowment, trust, or grant.c. To sponsor, encourage, conduct, and render financial assistance in student aid programs, alumni events, public relations activities, faculty supplements, curriculum enrichment programs, research projects, and studies as approved by the proper authorities of the university.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.7%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 93.4%; rating input score 93
  • 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; 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -2.1%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.6; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.7% of revenue deployed · 93.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 28 of 28 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $309K · 28 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.