University of Kentucky Research Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 616033693
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Lexington, KY, United States
- Phone
- 8592574758
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $496,128,536
- Expenses
- $482,869,232
- Assets
- $277,068,976
- Liabilities
- $62,168,585
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ELI CAPILOUTO (PRESIDENT)
- ILHEM MESSAOUDI (VICE PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- LISA CASSIS (FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- ELI CAPILOUTO (PRESIDENT): $2,220,088 total reported compensation
- ERIC N MONDAY (DIRECTOR): $1,989,626 total reported compensation
- ROBERT DIPAOLA (DIRECTOR): $1,984,219 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 Office of the Vice President for Research provides programs and services to support UK faculty, staff and students in grant development and submission, compliance and regulatory affairs, development of intellectual property, and highlighting their research achievements. The Office of Research Information Services supports the computing, networking, and communications infrastructure, as well as maintains the technology budget, for research administrative units under the Office of the Vice President for Research. The RIS staff provides application programming, database and Web services, server and desktop support, troubleshooting, and more. Support Requests Email [email protected] (Tickets will only be accepted from a valid University of Kentucky email account.).
What it reported doing in 2024
To promote scientific, educational, and development activities at the university of Kentucky.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 97% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 89% 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.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 86
- Transparency & Controls: 83
- Accountability: 60
- Sustainability: 46
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 96.5%; rating input score 96
- Program expense ratio: 98.8%; rating input score 99
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 40%; rating input score 40; 11th 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 2.7%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.57; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.3%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 96.5% of revenue deployed · 98.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $477.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $2.2M · 13 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 44 of 45 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
- Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 40/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Fund balance restriction sum did not reconcile in the filed values.