The Alumni Association of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
566060867
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Greensboro, NC, USA
Phone
3363345696
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alumni Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$191,210
Expenses
$234,635
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

30 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELISHA E GUTLOFF (PRESIDENT)
  • SHERITA WARREN GATLING (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARY G LANDERS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY G LANDERS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $128,400 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The uncg alumni association seeks to draw each and every graduate into a lifelong connection with uncg and to inspire alumni to serve and advocate on behalf of their alma mater. We will do this by promoting continued cultural, educational, and relationship-building opportunities for alumni, and sharing the uncg story through regular meaningful communication in order to advance the interests of the university.

What it reported doing in 2018

During the fiscal year ended june 30, 2019, homecoming activities and other engagement events served approximately 18,000 alumni. Alumni networks, both local and out-of-state, were active in providing opportunities for career networking, service projects, social events and other avenues of engagement. The association also helped launch online engagement opportunities such as an online book club, mentorship opportunities and podcasts. Emphasis continued on our gold alumni (graduates of the last decade), vanguard (alumni who have celbrated their 50th reunion), young professionals and veterans. Emphasis was also placed on increasing opportunities for transfer, commuter and online learners. We were also proud to offer more diverse outreach to our under represented populations such as minority populations, lgbqt, latinx alumni and native american alumni.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 6
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.8%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 66.9%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -22.7%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.4% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.8% of revenue deployed · 66.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 29 of 29 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $157K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $128K · 30 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2009 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.