Wright State University Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237019799
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Dayton, OH, USA
Phone
9377752251
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$22,286,172
Expenses
$9,582,169
Assets
$192,561,802
Liabilities
$3,478,306

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

Leadership & pay

36 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Andrea Wall (Executive Director)
  • R Scott Rash (President & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • R Scott Rash (President & CEO): $329,766 total reported compensation
  • Robert T Batson (CFO (UNTIL 4/30/2025)): $164,221 total reported compensation
  • Andrea Wall (Executive Director): $77,222 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 Wright State University Foundation's mission is to partner with Wright State University in providing funding that assists students from the Dayton region and beyond to obtain an affordable, quality education by: 1) promoting and facilitating a culture of engagement and philanthropy 2) prudently protecting, managing, and investing funds entrusted to it 3) disbursing funds aligned with the university's mission and priorities and ensuring funds disbursed are used as intended.

What it reported doing in 2024

University programs: donated resources for various academic and support functions at wright state university allows administrators flexibility to deliver quality programs to their constituencies. These contributions supplement the university's budget allocation and allow program managers to offer unique and creative learning opportunities for students. During the current year, 24% of expenses in this area related to partial or complete support of program personnel that otherwise would not have been supported by the university's operating budget. Proceeds in this area are also used to construct, renovate and rehabilitate university facilities. During the current year, 28% of expenses in this area related to partial or complete support of program personnel that otherwise would not have been supported by the university's operating budget. Proceeds in this area are also used to construct, renovate and rehabilitate university facilities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 89
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.4%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 69.8%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • 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: 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: 57%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 20.1; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.4% of revenue deployed · 69.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 30 of 30 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $6.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $330K · 36 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $644K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 44/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.