Long Island University
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 111633516
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Aug 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2008
- Location
- Brooklyn, NY, USA
- Phone
- 718-488-1011
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $491,250,945
- Expenses
- $438,555,465
- Assets
- $1,181,420,461
- Liabilities
- $218,253,345
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
40 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DR KIMBERLY CLINE (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- DR KIMBERLY CLINE (PRESIDENT): $1,496,104 total reported compensation
- ROD STRICKLAND (HEAD COACH MEN'S BASKETBALL): $818,797 total reported compensation
- CHRISTOPHER FEVOLA (VP AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $601,471 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide a high quality education to students of all backgrounds, preparing them for the challenges of the 21st century through innovative academic programs, experiential learning, and service opportunities.
What it reported doing in 2024
Student services and auxiliary enterprises - represents the activities that contribute to students' emotional and physical well-being and intellectual, cultural, and social development outside the context of the formal instruction program. Activities in this category include expenses for residence halls, student activities, cultural events, student newspapers, intramural athletics, student organizations, intercollegiate athletics, counseling and career guidance, student aid administration and student health service. Approximately 1,650 students reside in the dorms.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 87% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 80
- Accountability: 93
- Sustainability: 71
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 82.1%; rating input score 82
- Program expense ratio: 90%; rating input score 90
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.69 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 95%; rating input score 95; 34th 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Limited
- Conducts field audits: Limited
- May suspend future funding: Limited
- Requires financial reports: Limited
- Conducts site visits: Limited
- Requires grant agreements: Limited
- May require repayment: 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: 88%; rating input score 88; 35th 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: 10.7%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.69; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.1%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 5 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 82.1% of revenue deployed · 90% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 22 of 25 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $394.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.5M · 40 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $49.4M reported
- Consistency: 46 of 47 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 14 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: 18 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.
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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.