Truman State University Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431381504
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Kirksville, MO, USA
Phone
6607854150
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,027,739
Expenses
$4,633,477
Assets
$85,669,112
Liabilities
$614,657

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CALANEET BALAS (PRESIDENT)
  • PAUL GARNETT (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DR SUSAN THOMAS (UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR SUSAN THOMAS (UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT): $439,626 total reported compensation
  • DR ERNIE HUGHES (SECRETARY EX OFFICIO - THRU 12/24): $226,310 total reported compensation
  • RASHMI PRASAD (BOARD MEMBER): $197,695 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 mission of the truman state university foundation is to support the goals and activities of truman state university by obtaining financial support, nurturing viable relationships with external constituencies, and serving as prudent financial stewards of the foundation's resources.

What it reported doing in 2024

Higher education: funds are donated to the foundation in support of academic areas and initiatives at truman state university, which includes expenditures for operating expenses of the various academic units, institutional capital projects, academic learning events, and supplementing of the budgets for the various departments provided by the university. The foundation also operates a student loan fund which makes loans only to truman state university students to assist them with the cost of attendance at the university.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 61% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 70% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.8%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 84.2%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.2%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.8%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 18.49; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.8% of revenue deployed · 84.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 21 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $440K · 26 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.