Trinity Washington University
Legal name: Trinity College
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 530196640
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 202-884-9000
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Undergraduate College (4-year)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $85,811,448
- Expenses
- $53,127,182
- Assets
- $180,459,826
- Liabilities
- $27,234,829
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
25 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PATRICIA A MCGUIRE (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- PATRICIA A MCGUIRE (PRESIDENT): $300,683 total reported compensation
- PATRICK KELLOGG (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $228,907 total reported compensation
- CARLOTA OCAMPO (VP ACADEMIC AFFAIRS/PROVOST): $224,060 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Trinity Washington University, a Catholic liberal arts university in the nation's capital, educates students from diverse backgrounds to become leaders who create real change in their lives and communities.
What it reported doing in 2024
Auxiliary enterprises the college's dormitories, dining hall and the trinity center for women and girls in sports are the major auxiliary enterprises serving the campus community. Students have living quarters in four buildings on campus. Academic support includes a 200,000 volume online library, computer center and administrative office.
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 69% for direct work, and 31% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 63
- Transparency & Controls: 87
- Accountability: 96
- Sustainability: 80
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 51.6%; rating input score 52
- Program expense ratio: 77.2%; rating input score 77
- Fundraising efficiency: $44.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 38.1%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.4; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 51.6% of revenue deployed · 77.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 17 of 18 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $41M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $301K · 25 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $6.8M reported
- Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.