The Alumni Association of the University of Rhode Island

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
056015936
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Kingston, RI, USA
Phone
4018742242
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alumni Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,071,674
Expenses
$4,252,795
Assets
$7,769,978
Liabilities
$466,542

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIEL LOWNEY (PRESIDENT)
  • KATHLEEN O'DONNELL-WHITE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • COLLEEN GOUVEIA MOULTON (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHELE NOTA (SECRETARY/EXECUTIVE DIRECT): $155,603 total reported compensation
  • CATHERINE HANDRAHAN (ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FINANCE): $93,314 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The university of Rhode Island alumni association informs and engages current and future alumni as committed partners of the university, its missions and traditions.

What it reported doing in 2017

The mission of the department of athletics is to provide experiences that are consistent with the mission of the university of Rhode Island and the ncaa division i philosophy. The department provides opportunities for students and the larger community that encourages the pursuit of lifetime activities, commitment, teamwork, competitive success, the development of personal character, and leadership skills. We maintain an environment that values integrity, diversity, gender equality, high academic achievement, and sound fiscal management. Athletics strives to provide high quality facilities and programs that cultivate an exciting environment for the university and the community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 93
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 96.1%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.8%; rating input score 96; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -4.4%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.83; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.4%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 24 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $156K · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2009 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.