Newark Campus Development Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311062282
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Newark, OH, USA
Phone
7403458983
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
University or Technological Institute

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$31,461,525
Expenses
$3,763,963
Assets
$85,966,826
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STUART PARSONS (PRESIDENT)
  • JENNIFER ROBERTS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNIFER ROBERTS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $64,122 total reported compensation
  • JULIE DEIBEL (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $38,744 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 mission of the newark campus development fund, a perpetual, locally controlled source of funding, is to support the newark campus of the Ohio state university and central Ohio technical college by funding scholarships, grants, innovative projects and capital improvements that are not provided by any other state resource.

What it reported doing in 2024

The newark campus development fund (ncdf) acts as a conduit for generous donors to assist the growing needs of the newark campus. Established in 1983, ncdf has provided more than $59 million in scholarships, grants and capital investments. Capital projects funded include the construction of the everett reese bell tower, the j gilbert reese technology center, the john and christine warner library and student center and the john and mary alford center for science and technology, as well as providing funds for technological equipment, parking, and campus beautification.the headcount at Ohio state newark is 2,877 and 1,966 at cotc for autumn semester 2025. These students face increasing difficulties paying for books & tuition, juggling minimum wage jobs and college courses, as well as living expenses of young families. Unrestricted scholarship and grant funds help the most to meet the needs of students. The ncdf supports projects and scholarship needs that state and federal resources cannot.in the academic year ending on june 30, 2025, the ncdf funded 737 scholarships and 12 grants.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 98% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 95
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 16.6%; rating input score 17
  • Program expense ratio: 86.7%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $998.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 6th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 88%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 22.84; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.7%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 16.6% of revenue deployed · 86.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $64K · 15 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $368K reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • 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 17/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.