The Orau Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581512615
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Oak Ridge, TN, USA
Phone
8653474630
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,885,638
Expenses
$949,913
Assets
$68,754,964
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MEGHAN F MILLWOOD (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • J PHIL ANDREWS (TREASURER / SECRETARY): $478,426 total reported compensation
  • RACHEL F LOKITZ (DIRECTOR): $452,644 total reported compensation
  • MEGHAN F MILLWOOD (PRESIDENT): $406,961 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 orau foundation supports oak ridge associated universities, inc. In its mission to focus on the advancement of scientific research and education while providing innovative solutions to strengthen and secure america.

What it reported doing in 2024

The orau-directed research and development (odrd) program supports collaborative, cross-cutting research that advances scientific and technical capabilities across orau and its member institutions. Through partnerships between orau researchers and consortium university faculty, the program promotes innovative projects that strengthen expertise, expand research capacity, and foster new ideas and technologies. Led by orau subject matter experts and informed by the strengths of member universities, odrd projects create valuable collaboration opportunities while enhancing participants' research capabilities. Participation in odrd is a key benefit of orau consortium membership, giving institutions access to collaborative research opportunities that drive innovation and shared impact.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 26
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 89
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 20.3%; rating input score 20
  • Program expense ratio: 44.4%; rating input score 44
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 80.6%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 72.38; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.5%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 20.3% of revenue deployed · 44.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $422K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $478K · 10 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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 20/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 44/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.