Furman University
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 570314395
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Greenville, SC, US
- Phone
- 8642943496
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Undergraduate College (4-year)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $296,850,871
- Expenses
- $280,054,127
- Assets
- $1,449,547,125
- Liabilities
- $269,707,562
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
50 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DR ELIZABETH DAVIS (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- ROBERT RICHEY (MEN'S HEAD BASKETBALL COACH): $827,680 total reported compensation
- DR ELIZABETH DAVIS (PRESIDENT): $702,973 total reported compensation
- SUSAN MADDUX (VP FOR FIN & ADMIN): $463,415 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Furman students are academically challenged and leave Furman as lifelong learners who are changing the communities around them. Whether alumni of Furman, the parent of a Furman alumni or a friend of Furman, we consider everyone who supports this institution a member of the Furman family. Mentorship Career Resources. Experience firsthand how Furman propels you toward personal and professional success. Our beautiful 940-acre campus sits in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, surrounded by diverse industries and Fortune 500 companies. This setting provides the perfect backdrop for our high-impact programs, student-centered support, and vibrant community. SCHEDULE A VISIT Bell tower at dusk.
What it reported doing in 2024
Instruction of students in both undergraduate and graduate programs. A personalized four-year pathway for students instituted by the furman advantage includes high impact, engaged learning through research, internships, and study abroad programs. Scholarships are awarded to eligible students based on financial need and academic merit.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 78% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 63% for direct work, and 37% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 89
- Transparency & Controls: 68
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 67
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 89.4%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: $7.27 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 48th 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; 77th 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: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 5.7%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.18; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.4%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd 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: 100% of revenue deployed · 89.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 31 of 31 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $250.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $828K · 50 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $81.8M reported
- Consistency: 41 of 42 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 13 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 31 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 14 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.
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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.