New England Commission of Higher Education Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 821825330
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2018–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2016
- Location
- Wakefield, MA, USA
- Phone
- 7814257747
- Rating
- 71
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Professional Societies, Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,483,762
- Expenses
- $4,214,451
- Assets
- $12,901,712
- Liabilities
- $1,947,620
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
35 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Lawrence Schall (President)
- Paula Harbecke (Vice President)
- Carol Anderson (Vice President)
- Laura Gambino (Vice President)
- Aaron K Perkus (Assistant Vice President)
- Mark Nicholas (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Lawrence Schall (President): $500,078 total reported compensation
- Paula Harbecke (Vice President): $281,553 total reported compensation
- Carol Anderson (Vice President): $271,369 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 commission exercises the dual roles of quality assurance and encouraging continuous improvement for degree-granting institutions of higher education nationally and, as determined by the commission, internationally. Through a process of peer review, the commission assures the education community and the public that accredited institutions have clearly defined objectives, consistent with standard of accreditation established by the commission, and that they have the organization, staffing and resources to accomplish and sustain these objectives.
What it reported doing in 2024
The new england commission of higher education accredits member (203) and candidate (9) institutions in the u.s. And internationally. This work is carried out by volunteers who serve as members of its decision-making body, the commission (29), and on its evaluation teams. Dues are received from member and candidate institutions.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 92% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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: 53
- Transparency & Controls: 76
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 66
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 52.2%; rating input score 52
- Program expense ratio: 71.6%; rating input score 72
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th 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: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 23.1%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.06; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 38.8%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.3% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 52.2% of revenue deployed · 71.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 29 of 29 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $500K · 35 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $144K reported
- Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 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.
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.