Antioch College Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261672457
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2022
Location
Yellow Springs, OH, USA
Phone
9373196172
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Secondary, High School

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,914,724
Expenses
$14,348,622
Assets
$37,768,973
Liabilities
$3,740,977

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JANE FERNANDES PHD (PRESIDENT)
  • NATALIE KUBAT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ADVA)

Highest reported compensation

  • JANE FERNANDES PHD (PRESIDENT): $315,743 total reported compensation
  • NATALIE KUBAT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ADVA): $168,491 total reported compensation
  • BRIAN NORMAN (PROVOST & PRINCIPAL ACADEM): $157,457 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 mission of antioch college is to provide a rigorous liberal arts education on the belief that scholarship and life experience are strengthened when linked, that diversity in all its manifestations is a fundamental component of excellence in education, and that authentic social and community engagement is vital for those who strive to win victories for humanity.

What it reported doing in 2024

Program expenses include the development of curriculum for the re-established antioch college. The college awards the bachelor of arts and bachelor of science degrees. The general education program includes courses in the arts, humanities, sciences, and social sciences; global seminars in which students critically analyze global problems through an interdisciplinary study of resources and systems; theme-based writing and quantitative skills seminars; work portfolios, which are courses that are delivered online while students are oncooperative education work assignments; and the senior reflection paper.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 64% for direct work, and 36% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.5%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 64.2%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 93.6%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 77.8%; rating input score 78; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -20.4%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.63; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.3%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.5% of revenue deployed · 64.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $9.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $316K · 22 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.