University of Portland

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
930401259
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
503-943-8000
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
University or Technological Institute
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$280,843,748
Expenses
$253,930,030
Assets
$785,791,862
Liabilities
$115,219,194

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

Leadership & pay

71 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT D KELLY (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHANTAY LEGANS (COACH, MEN'S BASKETBALL): $739,730 total reported compensation
  • ROBERT D KELLY (PRESIDENT): $575,087 total reported compensation
  • DAVID MENGEL (PROVOST): $332,513 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Rooted in the mission of the Congregation of Holy Cross, University of Portland educates the whole person: head, heart, and hands.

What it reported doing in 2024

Post-secondary education: the primary mission of the university of portland is education. 3,285 undergraduate and graduate students were enrolled in 2024/2025 in the college of arts and sciences, school of business, school of education, school of nursing and shiley school of engineering. An integral part of our mission is the provision of student financial aid to help students pursue their education. A high-quality personalized education at the university of portland is an investment in each student's future success. We recognize that some students and their families may need assistance to meet some of their college costs, and we strive to help fill the gap between the cost of attendance and funds available to each student. We connect students with a wide range of internal and external funding options, but the expenses included in this categtory reflect scholarships and grants through institutional funds, annual and endowed gifts, and matching of government funds.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 80% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 52% for direct work, and 48% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.5%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 90.7%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.4%; rating input score 98; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 96%; rating input score 96; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.6%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.09; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.4%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 85.5% of revenue deployed · 90.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 48 of 50 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $230.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $740K · 71 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $23.6M reported
  • Consistency: 43 of 45 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 13 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 22 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.