Musc Strategic Ventures

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300895040
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Charleston, SC, USA
Phone
8437924000
Rating
50
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$24,551,858
Expenses
$4,655,810
Assets
$119,946,625
Liabilities
$76,295,080

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATRICK CAWLEY (CEO & DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID COLE (DIRECTOR): $1,537,042 total reported compensation
  • PATRICK CAWLEY (CEO & DIRECTOR): $1,475,187 total reported compensation
  • DONNA JOHNSON (DIRECTOR): $720,182 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 and support the educational, medical, scientific, and research purposes of the medical university of South Carolina "musc", and university medical associates of the medical university of South Carolina "uma", including their collaborations with medical university hospital authority "muha", to operate for the benefit of, to perform the functions of and to carry out the tax-exempt purpose of musc and uma, and any other existing or future tax-exempt affiliates of musc or uma; and to promote, establish, conduct and maintain activities on its own behalf, or in collaborations or ventures with others, as such may contribute to or otherwise support and assist musc or uma, or any other existing or future tax-exempt affiliates of musc or uma, all in accordance with law and requirements under the meaning of section 501(c)(3) of the irc and shall not carry on any activity not permitted under such statute.

What it reported doing in 2024

Musc strategic ventures will perform functions that would otherwise have to be performed by musc and uma which will involve determining and implementing strategies that enable musc and uma (along with muha) to collectively collaborate with high quality affiliated health care providers; provide education with respect to health care to communities and providers; improve access to high quality health care for the citizenry of South Carolina; establish and deppen relationships with musc and uma affiliates; optomize state-of-the-art information technology and communication systems to leverage expertise; utilize performance improvement methodologies to achieve optimal outcomes for populations; and generally drive other initiatives to promote the shared mission of musc and uma.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 23
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 54
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 14.4%; rating input score 14
  • Program expense ratio: 44.9%; rating input score 45
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 44.4%; rating input score 44; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 81%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 25.76; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.64; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.6% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.4% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 14.4% of revenue deployed · 44.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.5M · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 14/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 44/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.