University of the People

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264078735
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Wilmington, DE, USA
Phone
6262648880
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$22,263,905
Expenses
$21,914,904
Assets
$14,775,226
Liabilities
$3,885,164

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Asaf Wolff (Vice President)
  • Stan Brenner (Vice President)
  • Daniel Kalmanson (Vice President)
  • SHAI RESHEF (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Erika Roegies (COO): $323,693 total reported compensation
  • Asaf Wolff (Vice President): $263,166 total reported compensation
  • Marie Cini (Provost): $245,514 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 Mission of the University is to offer affordable, quality, online, degree-granting educational programs to any qualified student.

What it reported doing in 2024

Education services: as stated in its mission, the organization seeks to provide quality web-based educational programs, leading to a degree for the successful participant. For year end 8/31/2025, these expenses included instructional expenses, accreditation expenses, technological expenses and support.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 76% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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.

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: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 45
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.1%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 84.4%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.45 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.6%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.67; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.6%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.2% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.2% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.7% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.1% of revenue deployed · 84.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $18.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $324K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.