Briar Cliff University

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
420707124
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sioux City, IA, USA
Phone
7122795504
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$37,517,087
Expenses
$40,469,911
Assets
$45,238,145
Liabilities
$22,218,194

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

Leadership & pay

32 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATTHEW DRAUD (PRESIDENT)
  • STEVE FREEMAN (INTERIM PRESIDENT)
  • TIM JAGER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ATHL)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARK ROSSI (PROVOST): $191,951 total reported compensation
  • JOHN ROBERTSON (VP FINANCE & ADMINISTRATIO): $181,580 total reported compensation
  • PATRICK CROSS (PROGRAM DIRECTOR, DPT): $158,427 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Briar cliff university is a community committed to higher education within a liberal arts and catholic perspective. In the franciscan tradition of service, caring and openness to all, briar cliff emphasizes quality education for its students, combining a broad intellectual background with career development. The university challenges it's members to grow in self-awareness and in their relationships to others and to god.

What it reported doing in 2024

Briar cliff university is accredited as a degree-granting institution by the higher learning commission and is a member of the north central association of colleges and schools. Since 1945, the higher learning commission has granted briar cliff university full accreditation. As a four year liberal arts institution, briar cliff university offers doctorate, masters and baccalaureate programs in 44 fields of study, resulting in over 25,000 credit hours of post-secondary education. The university currently serves a population of over 1,200 students from 42 states, armed forces post office, puerto rico, and 14 foreign countries.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 76% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 62% for direct work, and 38% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - 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: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 97
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.6%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 88.7%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.8%; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.2%; rating input score 95; 29th 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: -7.9%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.12; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.49; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.6% of revenue deployed · 88.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 21 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $35.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $192K · 32 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.9M reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.