Fisk University
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 620202000
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2011
- Location
- Nashville, TN, US
- Phone
- 615-329-8586
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- University or Technological Institute
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $64,088,576
- Expenses
- $66,489,678
- Assets
- $228,909,878
- Liabilities
- $65,638,497
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
23 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ANGENIA CLARK (PRESIDENT)
- NATARA GARVIN (VICE PRESIDENT OF STUDENT)
- ROBERT CARR (PROVOST/VICE PRESIDENT OF)
- NORMAN JONES (CFO/VICE PRESIDENT OF FINA)
Highest reported compensation
- ANGENIA CLARK (PRESIDENT): $357,500 total reported compensation
- WENDY THOMPSON (CHIEF OF STAFF): $215,000 total reported compensation
- SUFYAN BAKSH (PROFESSOR & EXEC DIR OF IN): $197,130 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Fisk University is dedicated to providing a transformative educational experience that fosters academic excellence, leadership, and social responsibility, preparing students to become global citizens and agents of change.
What it reported doing in 2024
The organization is an institution of higher education andprovides instruction scholarships and various supportservices in achieving its primary purpose of educatingstudents.
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 55% for direct work, and 45% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 68
- Transparency & Controls: 83
- Accountability: 92
- Sustainability: 42
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 73%; rating input score 73
- Program expense ratio: 63%; rating input score 63
- Fundraising efficiency: $20.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -3.7%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.44; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.6%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 73% of revenue deployed · 63% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $41.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $358K · 23 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $17.9M reported
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 59/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.