Gallaudet Univ Alumni Assoc Alumni House

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
526050316
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2406001379
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alumni Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$78,479
Expenses
$65,292
Assets
$2,706,514
Liabilities
$266,162

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Rebecca Rydstrom (Executive Director)
  • Robert Weinstock (President)
  • Jose-Ovi Velasquez (Vice-President)

People named in this filing

  • Rebecca Rydstrom (Executive Director)
  • Robert Weinstock (President)
  • Jose-Ovi Velasquez (Vice-President)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To preserve and increase the influence prestige of Gallaudet University as an institution of higher learning. To promote those concerns that affect the welfare of the Deaf in general, especially those associated with education. To maintain friendship formed during students' college years as well as the social and fraternal relations among Alumni body of Gallaudet University.

What it reported doing in 2025

Chapter Reimbursements: To provide financial support to Alumni Chapters to maintain friendships and to solicit donations to help increase Gallaudet University endowment funds.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.7%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 44.9%; rating input score 45
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.8%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 41.45; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 28.6% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -28.8% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52.7% of revenue deployed · 44.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $29K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 53/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.