Florida State University Research Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
593211153
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Tallahassee, FL, USA
Phone
8506448650
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$24,252,536
Expenses
$38,636,606
Assets
$218,801,229
Liabilities
$64,598,051

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STACEY PATTERSON (FSU VP FOR RESEARCH, FSURF PRESIDENT)
  • RICHARD MCCULLOUGH (FSU PRESIDENT & CHAIR)
  • HEATHER CAVE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • GARY K OSTRANDER (FORMER PRESIDENT)
  • MARK RILEY (FORMER INTERIM PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • RICHARD MCCULLOUGH (FSU PRESIDENT & CHAIR): $1,694,587 total reported compensation
  • KYLE CLARK (FSU VP FOR FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION): $632,600 total reported compensation
  • DR JAMES CLARK (FSU PROVOST): $631,922 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 promote, encourage and facilitate the research and training activities of faculty, staff and students of the Florida state university through income from contracts, grants and other sources.

What it reported doing in 2024

The research foundation accepts and administers contracts and grants from private sources, (i.e. Non-u.s. Federal, state and local governmental entities), which are used in support of research at the Florida state university. The research foundation processed 270 proposals and 173 awards in the current year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 91% of its reported program spending out as 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 a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 52
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 86.2%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -59.3%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.66; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.3%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $33.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.7M · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $905K reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 15 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.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.