Syracuse University Alumni Association

Legal name: Syracuse University Alumni Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
161431749
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Syracuse, NY, USA
Phone
3154433408
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Adult, Continuing Education

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,009
Expenses
$120,920
Assets
$207,985
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

34 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ALONNA BERRY (VICE PRESIDENT/PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • PETER GIANESINI (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LAUREN VILLANEUVA (INTERIM TREASURER): $343,937 total reported compensation
  • VALERIE SEIBERT (SECRETARY): $16,683 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 Syracuse University Alumni Association engages alumni in the life of the university, fosters lifelong connections, and inspires support for Syracuse University's mission.

What it reported doing in 2024

Syracuse university alumni association creates an environment in which syracuse university alumni, former students, parents, students and friends become and stay connected to the university and support it with their work, wisdom, and wealth. The alumni association implements its mission in partnership with the university's office of alumni relations. Alumni club events were held, fostering support of syracuse university among alumni and enabling grants to be made to the university's general scholarship fund as well as scholarships awarded directly to students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.9%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th 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: 98.2%; rating input score 98; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1,409.8%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.72; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 47.9%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.6% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -16.6% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.9% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 33 of 33 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $118K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $344K · 34 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 5 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.