University of Rio Grande
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 314379537
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2023
- Location
- Rio Grande, OH, US
- Phone
- (800) 282-7201
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- University or Technological Institute
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $42,725,085
- Expenses
- $40,246,902
- Assets
- $76,930,633
- Liabilities
- $39,633,936
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
30 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- RYAN SMITH (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- RYAN SMITH (PRESIDENT): $480,928 total reported compensation
- DAVID A LAWERENCE (PROVOST/VP OF ACADEMIC AFFAIRS): $179,276 total reported compensation
- JOHN C NOURSE (VP OF HUMAN RESOURCES): $151,834 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 University of Rio Grande and Rio Grande Community College affirm that policies and practices relating to housing, academic and social life, and employment are applied without discrimination based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender, genetic information, gender identity, genetic information, religion, disability, age, marital status, national or ethnic origin, socioeconomic status, veteran status, political affiliation or other characteristics protected by federal, state, or local law.
What it reported doing in 2024
The university of rio grande has had a contract with rio grande community college (rgcc) since 1974 to provide to rgcc and its students instruction in arts and sciences, technical studies, nursing and allied heath, and social and behavioral sciences; access to all nonresidential physical facilities of the university; activities available to the students such as athletics, clubs, and other approved activities, student personnel services; and appropriate office space for rgcc's administrative personnel.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 78% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 66% for direct work, and 34% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 67
- Transparency & Controls: 67
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 54
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 73.4%; rating input score 73
- Program expense ratio: 79%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 17th 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: 5.8%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.91; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.52; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.3%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site
- Where the money goes: 73.4% of revenue deployed · 79% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 18 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $31.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $481K · 30 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.9M reported
- Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 10 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: 10 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.