Washington Adventist University
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 520643528
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Takoma Park, MD, United States
- Phone
- 3018914077
- Rating
- 71
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Undergraduate College (4-year)
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $27,722,801
- Expenses
- $31,158,148
- Assets
- $41,262,354
- Liabilities
- $30,924,676
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
37 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- WEYMOUTH SPENCE (UNIV. PRESIDENT/ BOARD SECRETARY)
- RICARDO FLORES SR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF IT)
Highest reported compensation
- WEYMOUTH SPENCE (UNIV. PRESIDENT/ BOARD SECRETARY): $218,858 total reported compensation
- CHERYL KISUNZU (SECRETARY & PROVOST): $146,962 total reported compensation
- PATRICK FARLEY (EXECUTIVE VP OF FINANCE): $145,590 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Washington Adventist University is a learning community committed to the Seventh-day Adventist Christian vision of excellence and service. This cosmopolitan institution challenges students to seize the opportunities for learning in the nation’s capital in order to become moral leaders in communities throughout the world.
What it reported doing in 2024
Our primary function is to present 4 year liberal arts formal instruction by maintaining a regular faculty and curriculum to a group of regularly enrolled students in accredited programs leading to useful certificates, degrees and/or diplomas in areas that fill critical needs in society such as nursing, accounting and education. Our student body this year consisted of 513 undergraduate and 99 graduate unduplicated headcount.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 62
- Transparency & Controls: 85
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 62%; rating input score 62
- Program expense ratio: 55.1%; rating input score 55
- Fundraising efficiency: $68.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- 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: Limited
- 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: 90.6%; rating input score 91; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: -12.4%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.32; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.75; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.7%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -3.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 62% of revenue deployed · 55.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 29 of 32 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $17.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $219K · 37 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2M reported
- Consistency: 38 of 39 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.