Stony Brook Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
116077945
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Stony Brook, NY, USA
Phone
6316326536
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$232,533,635
Expenses
$83,640,072
Assets
$1,481,679,910
Liabilities
$123,300,918

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

Leadership & pay

31 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JUSTIN FINCHER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THRU 2/2025))
  • CAROL GOMES (CEO, COO OF SBUH)

Highest reported compensation

  • MR DAVID MARCUS (CIO): $812,799 total reported compensation
  • DANIELLLE HOLTON (AVP, SBCH): $429,712 total reported compensation
  • KACY BULLARD (CFO & COO): $392,055 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 stony brook foundation, inc. Is a not-for-profit, "no member" corporation established in 1965. Sbf exists to advance the mission and goals of suny stony brook by facilitating, accepting and managing philanthropic gifts. (continued on schedule o).

What it reported doing in 2024

Stony brook foundation provided suny stony brook funds for various institutional support, including but not limited to: funding construction of cutting-edge facilities such as the indoor training center for athletics as well as substantial renovations of the current existing stony brook university hospital, subsidized funding to support various suny stony brook strategic academic initiatives, and stony brook university departments such as mathematics, physics and the turkana basin institute, an academic base for scientific research and training in paleontology and paleoanthropology.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 43% for direct work, and 57% 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 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: 46
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30.8%; rating input score 31
  • Program expense ratio: 67.6%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.5%; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 86.4%; rating input score 86; 33rd 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: 64%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 17.71; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.8%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30.8% of revenue deployed · 67.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 22 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $56.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $813K · 31 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $6M reported
  • Consistency: 42 of 44 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 12 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 31/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.