Georgia State University Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
586033185
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Jun 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
4044133402
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$91,574,733
Expenses
$64,760,206
Assets
$565,653,579
Liabilities
$126,548,719

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

Leadership & pay

39 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHERYL HARRELSON (PRESIDENT & VP OF UNIVERSITY ADVANCEMENT)
  • M BRIAN BLAKE (EX-OFFICIO TRUSTEE & GSU PRESIDENT)
  • TABATHA MICHEL (GSUF INTERIM PRESIDENT/ AVP)
  • Telly Mcgaha (GSUF Interim President/AVP)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHERYL HARRELSON (PRESIDENT & VP OF UNIVERSITY ADVANCEMENT): $304,659 total reported compensation
  • TABATHA MICHEL (GSUF INTERIM PRESIDENT/ AVP): $282,863 total reported compensation
  • CHRIS BURGE (AVP ADVANCEMENT INFOSYS/TECH): $260,869 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Georgia State University Foundation serves as an ambassador of Georgia State University, supporting and assisting the university in achieving its mission through the identification, cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship of gifts and by collaborating and advising on activities for the benefit and advancement of the university.

What it reported doing in 2024

Student support: the gsu foundation provided the university support for students. Students received both merit and need based scholarship support across all programs and units of the university. Private gift support is critical to reaching our goal of having all willing students able to explore their educational opportunities, experience college life, and efficiently manage tuition costs and debt loads.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 64% of its reported program spending out as 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.8%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 96.5%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: $44.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.9%; rating input score 94; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 29.3%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.73; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.3%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.8% of revenue deployed · 96.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 31 of 33 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $62.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $305K · 39 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.1M reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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 — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.