University Impact

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821504018
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Provo, UT, USA
Phone
3852865900
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$185,438,567
Expenses
$44,502,994
Assets
$384,665,872
Liabilities
$1,670,591

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIEL BLAKE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • AARON MILLER (BOARD CHAIR)
  • DANIEL BLAKE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • CHAITALI PATEL (BOARD MEMBER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

University impact (ui) was founded to build an ecosystem that can accelerate solving the world's social and environmental problems.

What it reported doing in 2024

University impact serves as a sponsoring organization as described in code section 4966(d)(1) and maintains a portfolio of donor advised funds dafs. Each daf is an account: i. Separately identified by reference to contributions of a donor or donors; ii. Owned and controlled by university impact; iii. And has advisory, non-binding privileges with respect to the distributions or investments of the daf funds.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 85
  • Sustainability: 95
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 26.4%; rating input score 26
  • Program expense ratio: 96.7%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: $571.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.3%; rating input score 99; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 76%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.64; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 52.2% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 45.3% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 55.8% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 26.4% of revenue deployed · 96.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $43M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $3.3M reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 319 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 318 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 26/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.