University of Massachusetts Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
046013152
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Newton, MA, USA
Phone
7819125015
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$172,508,463
Expenses
$52,686,406
Assets
$2,798,247,960
Liabilities
$1,267,032,390

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES R JULIAN JR (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • JONATHAN GIBBONS (CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER): $1,777,237 total reported compensation
  • JAMES R JULIAN JR (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $1,173,502 total reported compensation
  • GEOFFREY BOWES (MANAGING DIRECTOR, INVESTMENT TEAM): $743,752 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 university of Massachusetts foundation, inc. Is to foster and promote the growth, progress and general welfare of the university of Massachusetts as stated in the original 1950 articles of organization. The foundation receives, invests and disburses private & public gifts for the benefit of the university of Massachusetts and its educational mission.

What it reported doing in 2024

The university of Massachusetts foundation, inc. Invests funds for the benefit of the university of Massachusetts and to promote the general welfare of higher education in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. The foundation's support includes but is not limited to scholarship and education programs and general program support.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 71% 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: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.3%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 61.1%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $35.02 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • 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; 51st 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: 69.5%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 53.11; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.45; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.1%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.9% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.3% of revenue deployed · 61.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $32.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.8M · 27 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.4M reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 41 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 39/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.