University of San Diego
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 952544535
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- San Diego, CA, USA
- Phone
- 6192604600
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $741,185,768
- Expenses
- $653,084,165
- Assets
- $1,915,674,606
- Liabilities
- $356,470,398
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
54 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JAMES T HARRIS III (PRESIDENT & TRUSTEE)
- GAIL BAKER MCCARTY (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT & PROVOST)
- KATHRYN ROIG (VICE PRESIDENT FOR FINANCE & CFO)
- CHARLOTTE JOHNSON (VICE PRESIDENT, STUDENT AFFAIRS)
- MICHAEL LOVETTE COYLER (VICE PRESIDENT, MISSION INTEGRATION)
Highest reported compensation
- JAMES T HARRIS III (PRESIDENT & TRUSTEE): $1,682,191 total reported compensation
- STEVEN LAVIN (HEAD COACH, MEN'S BASKETBALL): $904,329 total reported compensation
- RICHARD VIRGIN (VP, UNIVERSITY ADVANCEMENT): $627,936 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Dedicated to the ongoing legacy of our founders, the University of San Diego is committed to confronting humanity’s urgent challenges and empowering our students to live fulfilling lives as responsible, global citizens. Here, faculty members and students come together to pursue research, service and outreach on scholarly and social topics ranging from new enterprises for research and prosperity to conflict resolution and human rights to energy policy issues and beyond. These USD centers and institutes offer faculty and students unique learning and research opportunities and provide direct benefits and services to San Diego, the nation and on a global scale. University Centers and Institutes.
What it reported doing in 2024
The university of san diego is engaged in post-secondary education of approximately 6,086 undergraduate students and 2,854 graduate and professional students, and 893 law students; this program includes room & board for the student population.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 77% 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 62% for direct work, and 38% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 73
- Transparency & Controls: 73
- Accountability: 94
- Sustainability: 73
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 73.6%; rating input score 74
- Program expense ratio: 80.2%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: $11.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th 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: Pass
- 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; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 89.7%; rating input score 90; 37th 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: 11.9%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.93; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.9%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 73.6% of revenue deployed · 80.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 26 of 29 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $523.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.7M · 54 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $73M reported
- Consistency: 41 of 42 current checks pass · 1 finding 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: 32 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.
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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.