US Foundation for Queen's University at Kingston
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 521960422
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Kingston, ON, CA
- Phone
- 6135332050
- Rating
- 69
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,240,101
- Expenses
- $5,202,595
- Assets
- $95,496
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Michelle Fuko (President)
- Deanna Bennett (Vice-President)
Highest reported compensation
- Michelle Fuko (President): $197,963 total reported compensation
- Chad McLeod (Treasurer): $162,616 total reported compensation
- Deanna Bennett (Vice-President): $153,599 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Promote educational disciplines
What it reported doing in 2024
Contribute to the educational and research activities of Queen's University at Kingston deemed by the US Foundation to be necessary to the University in accomplishing its charitable and educational mission and to be of significance and interest to the American public. Allocation of funds to Queen's University at Kingston is at the sole discretion of the Board of the US Foundation, a separate legal body from Queen's University at Kingston.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 99% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 88
- Transparency & Controls: 59
- Accountability: 47
- Sustainability: 38
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 99.3%; rating input score 99
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Limited
- Conducts field audits: Limited
- May suspend future funding: Limited
- Requires financial reports: Limited
- Conducts site visits: Limited
- Requires grant agreements: Limited
- May require repayment: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 40%; rating input score 40; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- 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: 0.7%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.02; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.5%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 14.9% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14.8% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 99.3% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $5.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $198K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 40/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.