Sterling College
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 030197728
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Craftsbury Common, VT, USA
- Phone
- 8025867711
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Undergraduate College (4-year)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,553,144
- Expenses
- $8,371,971
- Assets
- $4,994,466
- Liabilities
- $2,300,561
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SCOTT THOMAS (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- SCOTT THOMAS (PRESIDENT): $242,269 total reported compensation
- LORI COLLINS-HALL (COO): $84,574 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Sterling college uses education as a force to advance ecological thinking and action through affordable experiential learning that prepares people to be knowledgeable, skilled, and responsible leaders in the communities in which they live. We address critical ecological problems caused by unlimited growth and consumption that is destroying the planet as we have known it, such as: fossil fuel dependence and rapid climate change, destruction of biodiversity and loss of wild places, promotion of harmful agricultural practices that threaten human and natural communities, persistence of structural oppression that impacts human and ecological wellbeing, and the deterioration of civil society through estrangement from community, nature, and place.
What it reported doing in 2024
Costs to operate and maintain facilities, includes a library for the continued education and use of students. Restructured our budget to better align known revenues and expenses. Building long-term sustainable partnerships with values aligned state and regional partners, employers and funding entities.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 48% for direct work, and 52% for grants.
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: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 83
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 17
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 67.5%; rating input score 68
- Fundraising efficiency: $8.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 63rd 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: -83.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.46; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.9%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 67.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $5.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $242K · 15 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $262K reported
- Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 13 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.