Unc Eshelman School of Pharmacy Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
566037918
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Phone
9194693868
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,263,932
Expenses
$5,026,651
Assets
$91,074,336
Liabilities
$91,545

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KELLY COLLINS (PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATE DEAN)
  • JACQUELINE FEASTER (VICE PRESIDENT FINANCE & PROGRAM OPERATIONS)
  • KIRSTEN BEATTIE (VICE PRESIDENT OF DEVELOPMENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANGELA KASHUBA (DEAN-ESHELMAN SCHOOL OF PH): $462,747 total reported compensation
  • KELLY COLLINS (PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATE DEAN): $317,678 total reported compensation
  • JACQUELINE FEASTER (VICE PRESIDENT FINANCE & PROGRAM OPERATIONS): $190,667 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 foundation is: to foster and promote the profession of pharmacy and pharmaceutical education and research exclusively at the unc eshelman school of pharmacy.

What it reported doing in 2024

Faculty support - financial support for the unc eshelman school of pharmacy for faculty research including lab equipment, salaries and teaching innovation projects. Funding of various projects directly impacts 30+ faculty members. The majority of faculty benefit indirectly from support.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 93% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - 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: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 77.8%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -54%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 18.12; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.7%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 77.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $463K · 29 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 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.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.