University of South Carolina School of Medicine Educational Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
570705675
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Columbia, SC, USA
Phone
8032163304
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$44,237,810
Expenses
$43,269,985
Assets
$62,857,499
Liabilities
$27,031,193

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID AMROL MD (PRESIDENT, EDUCATIONAL TRU)
  • JEFFREY L PERKINS (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT/SECR)
  • DEREK B PAYNE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/TREASUR)

Highest reported compensation

  • GREGORY GRABOWSKI MD (CLINICAL PROFESSOR): $1,853,144 total reported compensation
  • JAMES BENJAMIN JACKSON III MD (DIRECTOR OF ORTHOPEDIC RESEARCH): $1,782,275 total reported compensation
  • JEFFREY GUY MD (CLINICAL PROFESSOR): $1,465,561 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 educational trust operates exclusively for the benefit of, and to carry out the purposes of, the university of South Carolina school of medicine and the greater university of South Carolina. Its main purposes are to augment and aid education, service, research, and development in the health sciences and in the fields of preventive and curative medicine. Therefore the overall purpose of the educational trust is to provide healthcare resources in conjunction with enhanced teaching opportunities and to provide resources in support of the school of medicine.

What it reported doing in 2024

The trust owns and operates two professional medical office buildings adjacent to the campus of prisma health richland.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 72% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 18
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.9%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 95.2%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th 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: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 89.3%; rating input score 89; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 2.2%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.45; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.43; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.2%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.7% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.9% of revenue deployed · 95.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 14 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $41.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.9M · 22 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4.1M reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 20 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.