Goodwin University

Legal name: Goodwin University Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
061627882
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
East Hartford, CT, US
Phone
860-528-4111
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$62,415,063
Expenses
$78,839,503
Assets
$307,757,593
Liabilities
$72,808,656

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

Leadership & pay

31 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK SCHEINBERG (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARK SCHEINBERG (PRESIDENT): $977,428 total reported compensation
  • TODD ANDREWS (SENIOR VP OF ECONOMIC AND STRATEGY): $878,175 total reported compensation
  • DANIEL NOONAN (SENIOR VP ENROLLMENT SERVICES): $856,126 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We train professionals with the courage to succeed and the vision to make a difference.

What it reported doing in 2024

Goodwin university is authorized to confer masters degrees, baccalaureate degrees, associate degrees and one and two-year certificate programs. To this end, goodwin university creates an educational environment that blends professional preparation with development of critical thinking skills and an appreciation of the humanities, arts and sciences; educates students in an environment that celebrates diverse cultures, ages, experiences and opinions; enriches our local and global communities by forming collaborative relationships that create educational, economic and cultural benefits; and assists our graduates with identifying and securing career and growth opportunities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 89% 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 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.5%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 66.6%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.67 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th 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: -26.3%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.9; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.7%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 81.5% of revenue deployed · 66.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $52.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $977K · 31 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.5M reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 54/100.
  • 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: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.