Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 390833612
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Madison, WI, USA
- Phone
- 6089609850
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Alumni Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $189,345,562
- Expenses
- $219,953,693
- Assets
- $3,432,336,917
- Liabilities
- $1,037,494,554
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
24 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ERIK IVERSON (TRUSTEE/CEO, SECRETARY)
Highest reported compensation
- ERIK IVERSON (TRUSTEE/CEO, SECRETARY): $1,032,701 total reported compensation
- MICHAEL FALK (CHIEF IP & LICENSING OFFICER): $797,788 total reported compensation
- ALAIN HUNG (DEPUTY CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER): $725,809 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 scientific research within the uw-madison community by providing financial support, actively managing assets, and moving innovations to the marketplace for a financial return and global impact.
What it reported doing in 2024
1) warf supports uw-madison through ongoing operational and functional support, a core annual base grant, and additional year-to-year grants. Warf is a century-old, independent, nonprofit supporting organization that has provided direct operational support that most public universities must provide themselves, including serving as uw-madison's designated patent management organization; holding and managing educational and research-related assets; and connecting the wider community to scientific research at uw-madison. Since the great depression, warf's annual base grant has supported pivotal campus activities such as faculty recruitment and retention, graduate fellowships, and grants-in-aid for research projects. Over subsequent decades, warf grew to provide support that reaches into every corner of uw-madison's innovation ecosystem, including funding buildings and equipment to improve campus research and maintain uw-madison's excellence.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Investment-supported. 64% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 81% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 85
- Transparency & Controls: 87
- Accountability: 96
- Sustainability: 42
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 88%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 44th 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: -16.2%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 15.6; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.6%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 88% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $193.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1M · 24 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $11.5M reported
- Consistency: 39 of 39 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 27 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 9 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.