ONE WATERFRONT PLACE 7TH FLOOR, MORGANTOWN, WV, 26507
Enter your email to get free unlimited access to detailed financial data, historical trends, governance insights, and more for all 400,000+ nonprofits.
We'll email you a magic link. No password, no credit card, no cost.
You've reached your daily limit of 20 free organization lookups. Come back tomorrow — your quota resets every 24 hours.
Back to SearchThis research-based framework evaluates financial vulnerability by examining four critical risk factors: (1) Equity Deficiency - whether the organization has enough reserves to survive 3+ months without income, (2) Revenue Concentration - whether income is too dependent on one source, (3) Administrative Flexibility - whether admin costs are so low the organization can't cut them in a crisis, and (4) Operating Sustainability - whether they're running deficits. Each factor that falls outside the safe threshold is "flagged." The more flags, the higher the risk of financial distress.
📊 Fewer flags = Lower financial vulnerability and risk
Source: Tuckman & Chang (1991) framework; conservative thresholds validated against 2.08M+ IRS Form 990 filings (Feb 2026) — flags more orgs than strict quintile approach for early-warning detection
Academic framework for nonprofit financial sustainability (Tuckman & Chang, 1991)
This measures how concentrated or diversified the organization's revenue sources are. A score of 1.0 means all revenue comes from one source (maximum risk). Lower scores mean revenue is spread across multiple sources, making the organization more resilient if one source disappears. We analyze 9 revenue categories: government grants, private contributions, membership dues, fundraising events, federated campaigns, related organizations, program service revenue, investment income, and other revenue.
📊 Lower = More diversified revenue streams
Source: Herfindahl-Hirschman Index adapted for nonprofits (Tuckman-Chang)
About: The Tuckman-Chang framework identifies four key indicators of financial vulnerability. 0 flags = low risk, 1–2 = moderate risk, 3–4 = high risk. Validated across thousands of nonprofits since 1991.
WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC is a 501(c)(3) with EIN 556017181, based in ONE WATERFRONT PLACE 7TH FLOOR, MORGANTOWN, WV, 26507. Founded in 1954, the organization files IRS Form 990 and reported its most recent data for fiscal year 2023. In that period, it reported $242,493,810 in total revenue and $153,932,427 in total expenses, with net assets of $1,310,271,340. Its Trantor Score is 645 (Fair), reflecting its financial health based on liquidity, solvency, and operational efficiency.
The mission of the WVU Foundation is to enrich the lives of those touched by West Virginia University by maximizing charitable support and providing services to the University, its students and affiliated organizations.
Financial Health & Payment Capacity Assessment
Score based on: Liquidity (40%), Solvency (30%), Sustainability (20%), Efficiency (10%)
| 2023 | 2022 | Change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $242,493,810 | $137,168,472 | +76.8% |
| Expenses | $153,932,427 | $153,381,241 | +0.4% |
| Net Income | $88,561,383 | $-16,212,769 | +646.2% |
This is like a financial health report card that combines multiple factors (cash reserves, debt levels, profitability, and efficiency) into one score. A score above 2.6 means the organization is financially healthy. Between 1.1 and 2.6 is the "gray zone" where you should monitor closely. Below 1.1 signals serious financial trouble.
📊 Higher = Lower probability of financial distress
Source: Altman (1968), adapted for nonprofits
This measures whether the organization has enough liquid assets (cash and things that can quickly turn into cash) to pay its bills due within the next year. A ratio of 2.0 means they have $2 in current assets for every $1 they owe short-term - a healthy cushion.
📊 Higher is better - Ability to pay short-term obligations
This tells you how many months the organization could continue operating if all income suddenly stopped. It's like an emergency fund. Organizations with 6+ months can weather storms, while those with less than 3 months are vulnerable to cash flow problems.
📊 More is better - Operating runway available
Source: Nonprofits should maintain 3-6 months of operating expenses
Formula: Cash ÷ Total Assets
📊 Higher = More liquid assets
Formula: Current Assets - Current Liabilities
📊 Positive = Can cover short-term obligations
This shows whether the organization could pay off all its debts if it sold everything it owns. A ratio of 2.0 means they have $2 in assets for every $1 they owe - double coverage. Below 1.0 means they technically owe more than they own, which is a serious red flag.
📊 Higher is better - Ability to meet all obligations
This tells you what percentage of the organization's assets are financed by debt (money owed to others). For example, 30% means that 30 cents of every dollar in assets is owed to creditors. Lower is better - nonprofits with less than 30% debt are considered low-risk.
📊 Lower is better - Less reliance on debt
Formula: Total Liabilities ÷ Net Assets
📊 Lower is better - Leverage ratio
This shows what percentage of the organization's income comes from selling services or products (like tuition, memberships, or event fees) rather than donations. A higher percentage means they're less dependent on the generosity of donors and have more stable, predictable revenue. Organizations above 50% are considered self-sustaining.
📊 Higher = Less dependent on donations
This shows what percentage of the organization's income comes from donations and grants. Organizations that rely heavily on donations (over 75%) are more vulnerable to economic downturns or changes in donor preferences. Organizations with less than 50% dependence have more diversified, stable revenue streams.
📊 Lower is better - More diversified revenue
This shows what percentage of total spending goes to administrative costs like salaries, office rent, and utilities. While donors prefer low overhead (10-20%), organizations that are too lean (under 10%) may lack the infrastructure needed to operate effectively or adapt during tough times.
📊 Target 10-20% - Balance between efficiency and resilience
⚠️ ⚠️ Two Ways to Look at Admin Costs
From an efficiency view, lower is better. But from a resilience view, very low admin (under 10%) means the organization runs so lean that it has no room to cut costs during a crisis. The sweet spot is 10-20%.
Source: Inspired by Tuckman & Chang (1991) framework; threshold 0.10 is a conservative sector standard (empirical P20 = 0.00 on 2.08M filings)
This measures how efficiently the organization uses its assets to generate revenue. A ratio of 1.0 means they generate $1 in revenue for every $1 in assets they own. Higher is better - organizations with ratios above 1.0 are getting good mileage out of their buildings, equipment, and investments.
📊 Higher = More efficient use of assets
The surplus margin shows whether the organization is making or losing money. It's the extra revenue (profit) after covering all costs, shown as a percentage of total revenue. A positive number means they're building reserves, while negative means they're spending more than they're bringing in.
📊 Positive is healthy, negative indicates deficit
| Name | Title | Hours/Week | Role | Reportable Comp | Other Comp | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cynthia L Roth | President & CEO | 45.0 |
Officer
Director
|
$750,740 | $134,883 | $885,623 |
| J Wayne Richards | Vice Chair | 2.0 |
Officer
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Marcia A Broughton | Secretary | 2.0 |
Officer
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| William Sheedy | Chair | 2.0 |
Officer
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Alan J Zuccari | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Alexis Pugh | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Bradford Ritchie | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| David S Santee | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| George Bicher | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| George S Weaver III | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Jane McNeer | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Jo Ann Shaw | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Kerri Knotts | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Kevin Given | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Kevin K Sidow | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Kim Craig | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Michael T Escue | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Natalie Bush | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Ola Adekunle | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Penelope F Roll | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Robert Johnson | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Robert O Orders Jr | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Roderick Young | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Spencer Cavalier | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Susan Brewer | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Terri Hornsby | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Travis Rosiek | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Valentina Bigalke | Director | 2.0 |
Director
|
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Bernard J Davisson II | Sr. VP Development, CDO | 45.0 |
Officer
|
$476,193 | $56,598 | $532,791 |
| Jessica M Burns | Board Admin, Exec to CEO/Asst. Board Sec | 45.0 |
Officer
|
$94,125 | $31,103 | $125,228 |
| Melissa L Simpson | Asst. Treasurer | 45.0 |
Officer
|
$178,924 | $23,626 | $202,550 |
| Michael E Augustine | COO/CFO, Treasurer | 45.0 |
Officer
|
$425,456 | $56,598 | $482,054 |
| Richard Kraich | VP Investments, CIO | 45.0 |
Officer
|
$993,088 | $56,598 | $1,049,686 |
| Charles Kerzak | SeniorAssociateVP, UniversityDevelopment/ CampaignManagement | 45.0 |
Highest
|
$240,683 | $57,915 | $298,598 |
| Jeffrey Schoenherr | Assoc VP, Medical Development | 45.0 |
Highest
|
$246,180 | $55,563 | $301,743 |
| Jennifer Cunanan | Assoc VP, Investments | 45.0 |
Highest
|
$440,801 | $67,131 | $507,932 |
| Kaylon McInelly | Assoc VP, Investments | 45.0 |
Highest
|
$342,689 | $50,631 | $393,320 |
| Timothy Bolling | Sr. Assoc VP, Leadership Philanthropy | 45.0 |
Highest
|
$244,254 | $52,971 | $297,225 |
| Year | Revenue | Expenses | Assets | Net Income |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | $242,493,810 | $153,932,427 | $3,043,490,864 | $88,561,383 |
| 2023 | $137,168,472 | $153,381,241 | $2,826,400,531 | $-16,212,769 |
| 2022 | $221,489,920 | $104,681,014 | $2,666,942,947 | $116,808,906 |
| 2021 | $183,335,188 | $97,989,488 | $2,549,094,162 | $85,345,700 |
| 2020 | $155,430,683 | $106,328,976 | $1,952,164,791 | $49,101,707 |
| 2019 | $141,620,282 | $106,620,826 | $1,825,758,750 | $34,999,456 |
| 2018 | $131,813,965 | $124,715,588 | $1,783,345,224 | $7,098,377 |
Compare WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC with other nonprofits in West Virginia and across the country.