The Institute for Higher Education Policy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521818907
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2028618245
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Social Science

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,861,160
Expenses
$4,275,851
Assets
$15,823,577
Liabilities
$419,410

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY MAMIE G VOIGHT (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY MAMIE G VOIGHT (PRESIDENT & CEO): $320,283 total reported compensation
  • KELLY LEON (VP OF COMMS & GOVT AFFAIRS): $230,754 total reported compensation
  • TOLA FADEYI (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/TREASURER): $226,258 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 institute for higher education policy (ihep) works to build a more equitable and just society through higher education. We drive systemic change to advance equitable outcomes and generational impact for communities historically marginalized based on race, ethnicity, or income. We pursue this change through research, advocacy, policy development, and field engagement.

What it reported doing in 2024

Data & transparency our system of higher education is data-rich but information-poor. Ihep promotes smart higher education data use by identifying trends in data collection and reporting at the federal, state, and institutional levels, supporting a culture of data-use on campuses through our research, trainings, and communities of practices, and calling for the modernization of our postsecondary data infrastructure. Since 2014, ihep has led the postsecondary data collaborative (postsecdata), a coalition of diverse organizations that jointly advocates for the use of high-quality postsecondary data to improve access and success in higher education, inform and evaluate policy development, and inform student choices about their investments in higher education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 38.5%; rating input score 38
  • Program expense ratio: 75.2%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $99.37 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th 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: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • 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: 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: 51.7%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.7; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 38.4%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 38.5% of revenue deployed · 75.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $3.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $320K · 18 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $307K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.