Elmira College
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 160743996
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Elmira, NY, USA
- Phone
- 6077351800
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- University or Technological Institute
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $46,886,986
- Expenses
- $48,318,109
- Assets
- $101,246,435
- Liabilities
- $12,224,786
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
29 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CHARLES LINDSAY (PRESIDENT)
- KYLE GILBERT (VICE PRESIDENT OF FINANCE)
- PAULA LEE HOBSON (VICE PRESIDENT OF ADVANCEMENT)
Highest reported compensation
- CHARLES LINDSAY (PRESIDENT): $266,799 total reported compensation
- PAULA LEE HOBSON (VICE PRESIDENT OF ADVANCEMENT): $182,730 total reported compensation
- DENNIS KELLY (VP OF ENROLLMENT MANAGEMEN): $171,131 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Elmira College provides a liberal arts education with professional programs to shape your critical thinking while equipping you with the tools to succeed in the professional world.
What it reported doing in 2024
Instruction and academic support- provide higher education, grounded in liberal arts and sciences, to approximately 700 undergraduate and graduate students that enable them to become active learners, effective leaders, responsible community members, and globally engaged citizens.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 79% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 55% for direct work, and 45% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 69
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 97
- Sustainability: 45
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 76%; rating input score 76
- Program expense ratio: 75%; rating input score 75
- Fundraising efficiency: $4.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Fail
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 95.5%; rating input score 95; 29th 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: -3.1%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.1; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.6%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -7.3% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -4.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -3.5% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 76% of revenue deployed · 75% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 21 of 22 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $36.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $267K · 29 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $6.1M reported
- Consistency: 38 of 38 current checks pass
- Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 12 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.
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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.