The University of Southern Mississippi Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
646022505
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Hattiesburg, MS, US
Phone
601-266-5210
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$27,673,521
Expenses
$14,922,122
Assets
$214,494,117
Liabilities
$861,382

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

Leadership & pay

34 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STACE MERCIER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY)
  • CHRIS ANDERSON (PRESIDENT)
  • OMAR NELSON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JOE QUINLAN (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • STACE MERCIER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY): $174,627 total reported compensation
  • ELISSA ERNST (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $129,991 total reported compensation
  • LESLEE SMITH (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $118,316 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To support the University of Southern Mississippi by stewarding charitable gifts that advance its mission.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation provides support to the university of southern Mississippi in a multitude of ways. This fiscal year, the foundation supported the construction of a $2mm state-of-the-art therapy playground for the children's center for communication and development on the hattiesburg campus, provided 2,308 scholarships totaling nearly $5.7mm, and made many other disbursements in support of the university of southern Mississippi.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 88% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 91
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.2%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 82.9%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $43.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 46.1%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.37; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 75.2% of revenue deployed · 82.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 30 of 30 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $12.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $175K · 34 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $1.4M reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 12 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.