Georgia State University Research Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581845423
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
4044133529
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Reported finances

Revenue
$154,074,254
Expenses
$151,332,546
Assets
$124,155,027
Liabilities
$76,936,475

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • M BRIAN BLAKE (DIRECTOR): $1,005,694 total reported compensation
  • NICOLLE PARSONS-POLLARD (DIRECTOR): $509,100 total reported compensation
  • JARED ABRAMSON (VICE CHAIR): $492,190 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 corporation has been organized to engage in activities and pursuits which contribute to the educational, research, and service functions of Georgia state university. Thus, the corporation will attempt to secure gifts, contributions, and grants from individuals, industrial or other private organizations, governmental agencies or other public agencies and obtain and/or enter into contracts with such individuals or entities for the performance of sponsored research, development, or other programs to be performed under subcontract by Georgia state university.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation supported the learning engineering tools competition in 2024, a multi-million dollar prize challenge to leverage technology, data, and learning science to meet the urgent needs of learners across generations. The competition invited technologists, digital learning platforms, researchers, students, and teachers from around the globe to propose innovative tools or technologies targeting one of the four following areas in education: acceleration of learning in elementary and secondary literacy and math; transformation of k-12 assessments in both cost and quality; facilitation of faster, better, and cheaper learning science research; or driving improvements in adult learning that boosts wages.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 76% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 37
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.8%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 97.3%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • 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: 1.8%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.62; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.3%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.8% of revenue deployed · 97.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $147.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1M · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.1M reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 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: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.