Marine Corps University Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541143646
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Quantico, VA, USA
Phone
7036406835
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,199,797
Expenses
$1,459,312
Assets
$10,963,845
Liabilities
$230,679

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDREW AMMERMAN (PRESIDENT & CEO (FROM 1/16/2024))
  • RICHARD P MILLS (PRESIDENT & CEO (UNTIL 3/22/2024))

Highest reported compensation

  • ANDREW AMMERMAN (PRESIDENT & CEO (FROM 1/16/2024)): $231,007 total reported compensation
  • JAMES G LACEY (ACADEMIC CHAIR): $142,000 total reported compensation
  • JON SACHRISON (COO): $111,571 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 provide resources that enhance and enrich the professional military education and leadership of active duty and reserve marines across the corps.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation supplemented existing marine corps university programs by providing additional resources for a wide range of programs for which government funding is not available. Additionally, the foundation provided resources to marine units around the world to support professional military educational and leadership opportunities for which government funding is not available. All grants and allocations were expended in support of the foundation's exempt purpose.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 79%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 54.4%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.51; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35.6%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57% of revenue deployed · 79% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $231K · 21 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 34/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.