Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwe University
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 391453493
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Hayward, WI, USA
- Phone
- 7156344790
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $18,602,082
- Expenses
- $10,335,588
- Assets
- $29,413,978
- Liabilities
- $3,766,448
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KAREN BREIT (PRESIDENT)
- RUSSELL SWAGGER (PRESIDENT (THRU 4/25))
Highest reported compensation
- RUSSELL SWAGGER (PRESIDENT (THRU 4/25)): $224,712 total reported compensation
- KAREN BREIT (PRESIDENT): $140,616 total reported compensation
- LYDIA DENASHA (CFO (THRU 12/24)): $115,012 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The lac courte oreilles ojibwe university mission is to provide anishinaabe communities with post-secondary and continuing education while advancing the language, culture, and history of the ojibwe. In carrying out the mission, the lac courte oreilles ojibwe university curriculum will reflect ojibwe culture and tribal self-determination. The university will provide opportunities for individual self-improvement in a rapidly changing technological world, while maintaining the cultural integrity of the ojibwe.
What it reported doing in 2024
Provided instruction in associate degree, bachelor degree, master degree, diploma, and continuing education programs to 35 students in the summer semester, 208 students in the fall semester, and 192 students in the spring semester.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 88% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 87% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 45
- Transparency & Controls: 76
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 79
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 39.5%; rating input score 40
- Program expense ratio: 69.2%; rating input score 69
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- 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: 79.5%; rating input score 79; 16th 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- 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: 44.4%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.85; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 39.5% of revenue deployed · 69.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $225K · 11 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $9.6M reported
- Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 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: 10 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.