Ana G. Mendez University
Legal name: Ana G Mendez University Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 412096004
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Orlando, FL, US
- Phone
- 4075636501
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Higher Education Institutions
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $71,895,598
- Expenses
- $65,608,214
- Assets
- $34,709,371
- Liabilities
- $28,516,674
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- HERMINIO MARTINEZ (BOARD PRESIDENT)
- JOSE F MENDEZ MENDEZ (PRESIDENT)
- RICARDO RODRIGUEZ DOMENECH (EXECUTIVE ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- JOSE F MENDEZ MENDEZ (PRESIDENT): $1,384,493 total reported compensation
- RICARDO RODRIGUEZ DOMENECH (EXECUTIVE ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT): $804,947 total reported compensation
- RAFAEL NADAL ARCELAY (LEGAL COUNSELOR): $725,789 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 provide accessible, quality higher education that fosters the integral development of students, preparing them to be competent professionals committed to the well-being of their communities.
What it reported doing in 2024
Ana g mendez university, inc. Operates accelerated, dual language educational programs that educate students not only in their area of specialty, but maximize students' linguistic skills in english and in spanish through creating educational products and services designed to meet the needs and expectations of the community, facilitating access to quality higher education, establishing educational facilities to serve specific markets and developing strategic partnerships with other educational entities.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 37
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Accountability: 92
- Sustainability: 43
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 40.2%; rating input score 40
- Program expense ratio: 44%; rating input score 44
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 6 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- 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: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 32nd 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: 8.7%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.53; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.82; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.4%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 12% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 19.6% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 40.2% of revenue deployed · 44% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $28.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.4M · 19 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.8M reported
- Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 44/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.