The Consortium for Graduate Study in Management
Legal name: Consortium for Graduate Study in Management
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 430962198
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Chesterfield, MO, USA
- Phone
- 636-681-5460
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $62,508,455
- Expenses
- $63,491,729
- Assets
- $7,137,399
- Liabilities
- $2,095,586
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
30 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PETER J ARANDA III (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- PETER J ARANDA III (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & CEO): $414,001 total reported compensation
- KIMBERLY ALEXANDER (VP OF DEVELOPMENT): $235,922 total reported compensation
- GLENN WILEN (VP OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION): $216,062 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To expand access and increase representation in business education and leadership.
What it reported doing in 2024
Since its inception in 1966, the consortium for graduate study in management's principal objective has been to encourage underrepresented minorities and those who support our mission to pursue masters degrees in business administration at one of our member schools full time mba programs. Today we have 21 top-tier universities and approximately 1100 students annually are eligible for full fellowships or other gift aid. In fy2025, the 2025/2026 classes were provided $58.9 million in support.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 95% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 91
- Transparency & Controls: 87
- Accountability: 74
- Sustainability: 24
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 99.3%; rating input score 99
- Program expense ratio: 97.5%; rating input score 98
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 96.2%; rating input score 96; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -1.6%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.11; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.8%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 40th 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: 99.3% of revenue deployed · 97.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 25 of 26 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $61.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $414K · 30 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $135K reported
- Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 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.
- 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.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.