Educause

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841455437
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Boulder, CO, USA
Phone
3034494430
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Adult, Continuing Education

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$26,323,773
Expenses
$23,541,847
Assets
$52,779,485
Liabilities
$13,842,561

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN O'BRIEN (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
  • JOSEPH D RYAN (VICE PRESIDENT & CIO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN O'BRIEN (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $712,033 total reported compensation
  • SUSAN GRAJEK (VP PARTNERSHIPS (THRU 2/25)): $427,278 total reported compensation
  • EDEN DAHLSTROM (VP PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT): $369,620 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

EDUCAUSE is a nonprofit association whose mission is to advance higher education through the use of information technology.

What it reported doing in 2024

Communities and research: provides research and analysis about information technology in higher education to information technology professionals and higher education leaders. Provides structures through which members can network and collaborate with colleagues who are tackling technological progress in core technologies. Promotes the adoption of analytics-based systems among institutions of higher education. Conducts enterprise and administrative pursuits concerning the use of information technology in higher education institutions.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 84% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49.8%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 57.3%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th 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: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 90.3%; rating input score 90; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: 10.6%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.24; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.5%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 49.8% of revenue deployed · 57.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $13.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $712K · 26 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.3M reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.