Coleman University

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330419461
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
San Diego, CA, USA
Phone
8584990202
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
University or Technological Institute

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,620,239
Expenses
$9,240,606
Assets
$4,295,541
Liabilities
$1,453,170

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NORBERT J KUBILUS (BOARD MEMBER/PRESIDENT/ CE)

Highest reported compensation

  • NORBERT J KUBILUS (BOARD MEMBER/PRESIDENT/ CE): $310,056 total reported compensation
  • BRUCE GILDEN (COO/ VP): $90,428 total reported compensation
  • RONALD D KLINGENSMITH (CFO): $65,163 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To deliver relevant education that prepares individuals for technology-focused careers, while providing an environment where they may develop their full potential.

What it reported doing in 2016

In december, 2016, the united states secretary of education withdrew the federal recognition of the university's accrediting agency, accrediting council for independent colleges and schools. The university is allowed to continue its participation in the title iv programs on month-to-month provisional basis for a period not to exceed eighteen months (june 12, 2018). The university is currently in the process of seeking accreditation with another federally recognized accrediting agency. Failure to obtain accreditation with an approved agency within the required time frame will result in the loss of federal title iv funds. In addition, the university was required to sign a new provisional program participation agreement (pppa) and an accompanying addendum. The addendum - loss of recognized accrediting agency additional terms and conditions sets forth additional requirements the university must comply with in order to maintain its pppa. Under provisional certification, the university's participation is subject to revocation for cause which includes failure to comply with any provision set forth in the pppa or violation of regulations deemed material by the united states department of education. The university has compiled to date with the provisions of the pppa and addendum.subsequent event: on april 3, 2018, u.s. Secretary of education betsy devos withdrew the prior revocation of acics and restored acics's status as a fully recognized accrediting agency as of december 12, 2016. This order was based upon the march 23, 3018 decision by the u.s. Court of the district of columbia that remanded the prior secretary of education's decision to revoke acics's recognition to secretary devos. Accordingly, the provisions of the pppa and addendum were voided and the university resumed participation in title iv programs as an accredited institution.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 69% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.8%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 96.6%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 14th 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: 3.9%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -18% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -11.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -28.5% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.8% of revenue deployed · 96.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $310K · 7 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $302K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.