University System of Georgia Foundation, Inc.

Legal name: University System of Georgia Foundation Inc & Affiliates

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
586333106
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
404-805-0642
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$36,081,827
Expenses
$21,443,605
Assets
$527,074,217
Liabilities
$458,187,153

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NEIL L PRUITT JR (PRESIDENT USGREF MANAGER, LLC)
  • SCOTT BRYANT (CEO & VICE CHANCELLOR FOR DEV)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTINA PALOSKI (ASST VICE CHANCELLOR FOR DEV): $149,594 total reported compensation
  • SCOTT BRYANT (CEO & VICE CHANCELLOR FOR DEV): $101,721 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We exist to support the USG mission through advancing strategic philanthropy, managing assets effectively, and empowering institutions to strengthen our students and Georgia’s future workforce.

What it reported doing in 2024

Real Estate Support: The USG Foundation, in partnership with the University System of Georgia Board of Regents, facilitates financing of capital improvement projects and new facilities at USG institutions. We provide below-market lease terms to finance construction, renovation, or expansion of facilities. USG Foundation also provides refinancing of existing debt through tax-exempt bond financing. These partnerships result in reduced student fees, increased building efficiencies, and enhanced risk management for institutions across our portfolio.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 66% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 73% for direct work, and 27% for 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.5%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 96.3%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.97 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 89.8%; rating input score 90; 20th 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; 66th 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: 40.6%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 24.58; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.87; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.2%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 61.5% of revenue deployed · 96.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $20.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $150K · 24 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.6M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 38 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 48 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.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.