Florida Polytechnic University Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461426289
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lakeland, FL, USA
Phone
8638748416
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,069,416
Expenses
$1,459,131
Assets
$13,559,811
Liabilities
$35,543

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DEVIN STEPHENSON (PRESIDENT (AS OF 07/24))
  • RANDY AVENT (PRESIDENT (THRU 07/24))
  • KATHLEEN BOWMAN (CEO (THRU 01/25))
  • KELLI STARGEL (INTERIM CEO & VP STRATEGIC INITIATIVES)

Highest reported compensation

  • RANDY AVENT (PRESIDENT (THRU 07/24)): $847,998 total reported compensation
  • DEVIN STEPHENSON (PRESIDENT (AS OF 07/24)): $395,678 total reported compensation
  • KATHLEEN BOWMAN (CEO (THRU 01/25)): $293,153 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Established to help sustain the mission of Florida polytechnic university to educate students emphasizing science, technology, engineering and mathematics (stem) in an innovative, technology-rich, and interdisciplinary learning environment.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation supports Florida polytechnic university by securing and managing private philanthropic resources to advance its mission in stem education and innovation. During the year, the foundation funded student scholarships, academic programs, faculty support, and strategic initiatives, while strengthening engagement with alumni, industry partners, and the community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 66% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 83% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 33
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 87
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 36.9%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 36.2%; rating input score 36
  • 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: 95.2%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: 29.5%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.29; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.4%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13.2% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 36.9% of revenue deployed · 36.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 21 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $528K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $848K · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.