Urbana University

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
344427951
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Urbana, OH, USA
Phone
9374841390
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
University or Technological Institute

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$26,450,454
Expenses
$29,676,936
Assets
$20,563,722
Liabilities
$20,890,032

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

34 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KIRK PETERSON THRU MAY 2014 (PRESIDENT)
  • STEPHEN JONES (PRESIDENT (THRU APRIL 2013))

Highest reported compensation

  • KIRK PETERSON THRU MAY 2014 (PRESIDENT): $168,556 total reported compensation
  • STEPHEN JONES (PRESIDENT (THRU APRIL 2013)): $142,859 total reported compensation
  • JOHN ANGLEA THRU APRIL 2014 (CFO): $70,133 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

As an independent liberal arts institution, urbana university's strength lies in its quality faculty, students, and curriculum supported by strong student services.urbana university prepares students for a lifetime of leadership and service to society through excellent classroom instruction, real world experiences, community partnerships, and technology.it is the mission of urbana university to offer a liberal arts education in a small college environment emphasizing student learning through individual attention, excellence in instruction, career-oriented programs, and critical reflection on moral and ethical values.

What it reported doing in 2013

Higher education - approximately 1,500 students in five colleges (business, arts and science, educational and sports studies, nursing and allied health, and social and behavioral sciences), five off-campus sites (dayton, springfield, piqua, bellefontaine and troy), and four graduate programs (business, criminal justice, nursing and education).

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 81% 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 63% for direct work, and 37% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 91.1%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: -12.2%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.69; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.02; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.3%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.9% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 91.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $27M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $169K · 34 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3M reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2009 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 51/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.