Cardinal Stritch University Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
390806196
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2023, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Wauwatosa, WI, USA
Phone
4144104000
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
University or Technological Institute

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,944,663
Expenses
$432,799
Assets
$27,873,703
Liabilities
$549,774

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIEL J SCHOLZ PHD (PRESIDENT)
  • KATE MEUDT (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIEL J SCHOLZ PHD (PRESIDENT): $268,750 total reported compensation
  • KATE MEUDT (VICE PRESIDENT): $185,831 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Cardinal stritch university is a comprehensive, coeducational, institution offering educational programs leading to associate, baccalaureate, masters and doctoral degrees in a variety of disciplines provided through its three colleges: college of undergraduate studies, college of graduate studies, and the ruth s. Coleman college of nursing and health sciences.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cardinal stritch university was a comprehensive, coeducational, institution offering educational programs leading to associate, baccalaureate, masters and doctoral degrees in a variety of disciplines provided through its three colleges: college of undergraduate studies, college of graduate studies, and ruth s. Coleman college of nursing & health sciences. The organization is in the process of dissolving at this time.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 20.2%; rating input score 20
  • Program expense ratio: 87.5%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 77.7%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 64.4; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 105%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 20.2% of revenue deployed · 87.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $379K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $269K · 22 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

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: Mission deployment rate scored 20/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.