University of Memphis Research Foundation

Legal name: The University of Memphis Research Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205400381
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Memphis, TN, USA
Phone
9016781596
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,260,057
Expenses
$1,087,447
Assets
$4,970,367
Liabilities
$752,143

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JASBIR DHALIWAL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BILL HARDGRAVE (CHAIRMAN): $715,600 total reported compensation
  • JASBIR DHALIWAL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $425,656 total reported compensation
  • RICHARD BLOOMER (DIRECTOR): $346,333 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 purpose of the Foundation is to benefit the University of Memphis by promoting its objectives of providing higher education, conducting research, providing public service and assisting in economic development in Tennessee.

What it reported doing in 2024

Sponsored research and other educational/service activities developed and administered on behalf of faculty and staff of the university of memphis totaled 9 active program service projects funded by 2 unique sponsors, and the administration of several patents.the research foundation provides the following benefits for the university:1. Faculty and staff may apply for grants from sponsors whose eligibility criteria requires a 501(c)(3) organization.2. Faculty and staff may contract with sponsors that cannot accept tn laws (required for university contracts).3. For non-cost reimbursable program services funded by multiple sponsors, the research foundation maintains the accounting by sponsor which reduces the administrative burden on university accounting staff.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 50
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.2%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 93.1%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 53.8%; rating input score 54; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 13.7%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.57; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -11.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 82.2% of revenue deployed · 93.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 13 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $716K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.