Union Graduate College

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200258004
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Schenectady, NY, USA
Phone
5186319851
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
University or Technological Institute

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,186,816
Expenses
$3,429,844
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BELA MUSITS (INTERIM PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • BELA MUSITS (INTERIM PRESIDENT): $228,633 total reported compensation
  • JOSEPH MCDONALD (VP OF FINANCE AND OPERATIONS): $153,645 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide professional master's degree programs that equip promising students with the knowledge and competencies employers want and graduates need to shape successful careers. To deliver student-centered programs, taught by committed teacher-scholars, which prepare graduates who think critically, communicate effectively, demonstrate disciplinary excellence, and are socially and ethically responsible. To serve as a model of innovative, professional graduate education, based on strong community partnerships, that offers unique and highly effective programs and that leverage the economic and cultural vibrancy of New York's capital region.approximately 533 students served.

What it reported doing in 2015

The college serves full and part-time students, providing outstanding master's level professional degree programs that meet the needs of New York's capital region and beyond. Interactive classes, personalized attention, and experiential learning promote the acquisition of critical thinking, effective communication and quantitative skills, and the capacity for life-long learning. Approximately 533 individuals served.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 86% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 93
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 3
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 86.1%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $43.67 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th 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: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 65th 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: -56.8%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.1%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -33.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9.3% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -13.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $229K · 16 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2009 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.