Purdue Research Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 351052049
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- West Lafayette, IN, USA
- Phone
- (765) 588-4700
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $235,308,994
- Expenses
- $196,204,296
- Assets
- $5,101,167,755
- Liabilities
- $3,642,888,059
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
31 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Brian Edelman (President (through Dec 2024))
- Chad Pittman (PRESIDENT & CEO (beginning Jan 2025))
- Karen Plaut (Vice President for Research)
- Matthew Folk (P4L President & CEO and VP Univ Advancement (through Oct 2024))
- Michelle Giuda (CEO, Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy at Purdue)
Highest reported compensation
- David Cooper (Chief Investment Officer): $609,800 total reported compensation
- Michelle Giuda (CEO, Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy at Purdue): $601,037 total reported compensation
- David Broecker (Chief Innovation and Collaboration Officer): $596,603 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 support the research and educational mission of Purdue University by managing intellectual property, facilitating technology transfer, and fostering economic development.
What it reported doing in 2024
Purdue Research Foundation (the Foundation) was created in 1930. The primary purpose of the Foundation is to promote the educational purpose of Purdue University (the University); seek, acquire, manage gifts, bequests and endowments; make funding available to faculty, staff, and students to aid in scientific investigation, research or educational studies; develop land to provide proper spaces for the University's innovations to thrive; and manage intellectual property developed at the University and ensure technologies developed at the University are patented and licensed and to advance these innovations toward market impact by assisting start-up companies formed around intellectual property developed at the University.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 55% for direct work, and 45% for 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 total spending goes to programs and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 55
- Transparency & Controls: 74
- Accountability: 96
- Sustainability: 76
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 64%; rating input score 64
- Program expense ratio: 56.6%; rating input score 57
- Fundraising efficiency: $1.46 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 44th 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: 16.6%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 26; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.71; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 64% of revenue deployed · 56.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 16 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $111.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $610K · 31 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.9M reported
- Consistency: 39 of 39 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 13 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.