College Consortium for International Studies
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 133276866
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2019–2019
- Forms available
- Form 990 2018, Form 990-EZ 2019
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2022230330
- Rating
- 31
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- International Academic Exchange
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $196,821
- Expenses
- $258,820
- Assets
- $251,563
- Liabilities
- $147,636
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Jayme Kreitinger (Executive Director)
People named in this filing
- Jayme Kreitinger (Executive Director)
- Amparo Codding (Trustee)
- Stephen Ferst (Chair)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
CCIS is committed to providing access and opportunity to high-quality educational experiences abroad. The College Consortium for International Studies, a partnership of colleges and universities - two and four year, large and small, public and private, domestic and foreign - encompasses the broad spectrum of international higher education. CCIS was founded over 30 years ago on the values and commitment that all students should have access to and opportunity in education abroad, regardless of background, major, or socio-economic status.
What it reported doing in 2019
CCIS facilitates study abroad programs and capacity building for international educators, faculty, and administrators, which are designed to enhance international and intercultural perspectives within the academic community.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 64% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.
The verdict
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Sustainability: 21
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -31.5%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.97; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.59; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 41.4%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -7.7% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -9.9% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- 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 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.