Iona University

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133508093
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
New Rochelle, NY, US
Phone
(800) 231-IONA
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
University or Technological Institute
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$208,126,351
Expenses
$213,028,764
Assets
$519,626,598
Liabilities
$156,988,464

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

Leadership & pay

46 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR SEAMUS CAREY (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR SEAMUS CAREY (PRESIDENT): $921,375 total reported compensation
  • TOBIN ANDERSON (HEAD COACH - MENS BASKETBALL): $766,630 total reported compensation
  • TRICIA MULLIGAN PHD (PROVOST & SVP, ACADEMIC AFFAIRS): $394,701 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Innovative thinking and a commitment to service underscore our academically rigorous programs across every discipline.

What it reported doing in 2024

Tuition - founded by the congregation of christian brothers in 1940, iona university is chartered by the state of New York and fully accredited by the federal department of education approved regional accreditor, the middle states commission on higher education (msche), to offer credit bearing coursework towards degrees and registered certificates at the undergraduate and graduate levels. In addition to msche, iona's academic programs hold multiple professional and special accreditations from independent accrediting bodies including the accreditation board for engineering and technology (abet); accreditation council for occupational therapy education (acote); american association for marriage and family therapy (aamft); american chemical society (acs); association for advancing quality in educator preparation (aaqep); association to advance collegiate schools of business international (aacsb); college reading and learning association (crla); commission on collegiate nursing education (ccne); council on academic accreditation in (see on schedule o)

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 91% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 58% for direct work, and 42% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.2%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 89.1%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • 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: 96.9%; rating input score 97; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.4%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.44; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 91.2% of revenue deployed · 89.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 31 of 32 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $189.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $921K · 46 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $13.4M reported
  • Consistency: 44 of 44 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.