Ascendium Education Group

Legal name: Ascendium Education Solutions Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391853833
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
6087332559
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$186,045,000
Expenses
$196,689,891
Assets
$213,349,472
Liabilities
$13,604,719

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEFFERY E CROSBY - 3 (PRESIDENT & CEO - AES)

Highest reported compensation

  • RICHARD D GEORGE - 23 (CHAIRMAN/TREASURER): $884,194 total reported compensation
  • JEFFERY E CROSBY - 3 (PRESIDENT & CEO - AES): $623,947 total reported compensation
  • HOPE E MERRY - 3 (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $525,125 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Ascendium Education Group is committed to making education and training after high school a reality for learners from low-income backgrounds.

What it reported doing in 2025

Ascendium education solutions, inc. Provides philanthropic support for local communities - where its employees live and work, primarily concentrated in madison, Wisconsin. This support includes education-focused community giving, an employee giving program, and financial and personnel support for community services that align with our education focus. Community giving efforts focus on supporting local community service organizations and post secondary institutions. The ascendium cares program features an annual employee charity fundraising drive, a volunteer time-off program, and financial matching for time and funds donated to eligible nonprofits. Other services include free training and meeting space support for local nonprofits.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 96% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 79% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.8%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 94.4%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.9%; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -5.7%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.08; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.2%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 99.8% of revenue deployed · 94.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $185.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $884K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.1M reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 274 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 267 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.