University Circle Incorporated

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
340823464
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Cleveland, OH, USA
Phone
2167913900
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,299,860
Expenses
$10,962,259
Assets
$51,283,947
Liabilities
$4,892,108

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

Leadership & pay

67 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KATE BORDERS (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KATE BORDERS (PRESIDENT): $290,092 total reported compensation
  • DEAN PARKER (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $228,750 total reported compensation
  • ELISE YABLONSKY (CHIEF PLACE MANAGEMENT OFFICER): $199,080 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

University circle is one of the most extraordinary cultural districts in the world. Within one square mile, it is home to world-class arts, educational, and medical institutions and public spaces that welcome millions of residents, workers, students, and visitors each year. It is a place where global excellence and local life intersectwhere art, science, medicine, and education shape the civic and cultural identity of greater cleveland.university circle inc. (uci) is the nonprofit behind the neighborhood. Uci exists to steward this remarkable place, connect the people who breathe life into it, and tell its story in ways that are inclusive, compelling, and future-focused. Our mission is to answer the call for connection and community in cleveland's circle of arts, culture, wellness, and learning. Our vision is that the circle is an extraordinary place where locals belong, and the world is welcomed.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community programs, events, and engagement - university circle inc. Produces free public festivals and programs that promote university circle as a cultural destination while expanding access, participation, and belonging for residents and regional visitors. Through coordinated efforts between its marketing & experiences and engagement & collaboration departments, uci activates public spaces, amplifies institutional partners, and connects people to arts, culture, and resources throughout the year.during fy25, uci produced four marquee public festivals, including parade the circle & circle village, wade oval wednesdays (wow), yay! Fall fun, and the annual tree lighting, reaching an estimated 55,000 attendees. These free events are designed to encourage visitation and create shared experiences that support community vitality and economic activity. Fy25 marked continued growth in attendance and partner participation, particularly for wow.at the neighborhood level, fy25 marked the launch of new community responsive programs, with each program serving approximately 10 to 15 participants through a multi-week series. Programs may include creative writing, yoga, nutrition, safety, and arts-based classes, with a focus on accessibility and low-barrier participation. These programs expanded access to district resources while fostering connections at a local scale.marketing & experiences and engagement & collaboration operated as distinct but coordinated functions, aligning strategy and execution to maximize impact. Marketing & experiences led destination promotion, storytelling, and festival production to amplify free public programs and partner-led activations, while engagement & collaboration focused on relationship-building and access. This coordination is exemplified by university circle's annual mlk day observance, where marketing efforts amplify a district-wide calendar of free institution events and engagement & collaboration operates a free shuttle to physically connect residents and visitors to multiple locations across university circle.both departments also convened and participated in affinity group meetings with institutional and community partners to identify shared goals, reduce duplication, and explore opportunities for coordinated programming and resource-sharing. As participation and demand increased, uci navigated the operational challenges of scaling free programs while maintaining accessibility, quality, and responsiveness.fy25 represented a year of strategic growth and alignment, reflecting the early outcomes of departmental restructuring undertaken in fy24. This work positioned uci to expand its public programs and deepen community engagement in fy26, while reinforcing its role as a producer, connector, and amplifier of arts, culture, and community life in university circle.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.8%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 80.2%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd 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: 53.6%; rating input score 54; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: 17.6%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.68; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.2%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.8% of revenue deployed · 80.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 60 of 60 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $8.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $290K · 67 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $135K reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 40 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.