USM Foundation

Legal name: University of Maryland Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521125663
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Adelphi, MD, United States
Phone
301-445-1941
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$75,540,447
Expenses
$43,958,030
Assets
$2,569,545,617
Liabilities
$1,977,070,155

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

Leadership & pay

54 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Leonard R Raley (Chief Executive Officer)

Highest reported compensation

  • Sharcus Steen (CIO): $1,479,714 total reported compensation
  • Chris Ingram (Senior Sustainability & Public Markets Analyst): $492,260 total reported compensation
  • Charlie Sexton (Senior Investment Analyst): $486,597 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 University System of Maryland Foundation promotes, galvanizes, and supports the advancement of public higher education in Maryland through leadership and engagement in philanthropy, asset management, and stewardship. VISION. Inspire a long-term, sustainable culture of philanthropy across the University System of Maryland. Serve as an indispensable resource and an effective advocate for innovative solutions, best practices, and trusted values that stimulate increased private support. VALUES Collaboration. Excellence. Innovation. Integrity. Trust. Accountability.

What it reported doing in 2024

Higher Education: Support the academic programs of the University System of Maryland institutions through payments for salaries and benefits, equipment, scholarships, conferences, workshops, services, academic memberships, research activities and other expenses

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 75% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.8%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 63.9%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 6 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 41.8%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 58.45; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.77; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.4%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 80.8% of revenue deployed · 63.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 41 of 41 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $28.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.5M · 54 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $17.6M reported
  • Consistency: 48 of 49 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.