University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237336988
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
North Dartmouth, MA, USA
Phone
5089998200
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,379,757
Expenses
$2,856,368
Assets
$88,094,971
Liabilities
$10,607,580

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mark Fuller (President ex officio member)
  • Theresa Curry (Former Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Mark Fuller (President ex officio member): $646,497 total reported compensation
  • Raprasad Balasubramanian (Director exofficio member): $369,084 total reported compensation
  • Theresa Curry (Former Executive Director): $323,681 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 Organization provides financial assistance for educational programming of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. The Organization funds research, awards, seminars and instruction as well as need-based and merit scholarships to students of the University.

What it reported doing in 2024

Financial Assistance - The Organization provides financial assistance to the educational programming of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. The Organization funds research, awards, seminars and instruction as well as financial need-based and merit scholarships to full and part-time students of the University. The Organization also provides support for campus improvements, the library and instructional departments intended to enhance student engagement in the University and its programs. UMass Dartmouth distinguishes itself as a vibrant, public research university dedicated to engaged learning and innovative research resulting in personal and lifelong student success.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 77% 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. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 98
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.3%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: $90.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 38.9%; rating input score 39; 14th 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 15.5%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 30.84; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.7% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $646K · 24 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 23 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 39/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.