The Erasmus Institute of Liberal
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 800469306
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2010
- Forms available
- Form 990 2010
- Location
- Warner, NH, USA
- Phone
- 6034562656
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Undergraduate College (4-year)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $378,951
- Expenses
- $363,999
- Assets
- $26,383
- Liabilities
- $4,736
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The erasmus institute is a four-year liberal arts program of study, focusing on the study of the humanities. Study in a common curriculum in no way obscures the differences among participants but actually helps each to discover his or her unique destiny - and reveals the value of each person. Because the goods of the spirit are not diminished by being shared, the classroom is a setting where professors and students give - and receive - generously. There is no compromise of excellence for the sake of equality in the realm, where the most important human concerns are valued by all.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 73% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Accountability: 68
- Sustainability: 33
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 3.9%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.07; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 30.5%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $221K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $40K · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.