Tuskegee University

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
630288878
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2021
Location
Tuskegee, AL, USA
Phone
334-724-4860
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
University or Technological Institute

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$207,645,669
Expenses
$214,971,086
Assets
$642,930,651
Liabilities
$71,344,474

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

Leadership & pay

48 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mark Brown (President)
  • John Chambers (Pt Special Assistant to the President)
  • Dexter Odom (Senior Associate Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Mark Brown (President): $550,000 total reported compensation
  • John Chambers (Pt Special Assistant to the President): $288,304 total reported compensation
  • Reginald Ruffin (VP Intercollegiate Athletics Athleti): $257,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Tuskegee's mission has always been service to people, not education for its own sake. Dr. Booker T. Washington stressed the need to educate the whole person -- the hand and the heart, as well as the mind.

What it reported doing in 2024

Tuskegee University provided educational services to approximately 3,200 students during the fiscal year. The University also contributed to the betterment of society through research and development by professors and other employees.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.4%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 83.4%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -3.5%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.99; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.3%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 86.4% of revenue deployed · 83.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $179.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $550K · 48 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $53.3M reported
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 46 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 21 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.