Avila University

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
440617326
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Phone
816.942.8400
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
University or Technological Institute

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$75,876,063
Expenses
$77,961,141
Assets
$55,582,795
Liabilities
$30,741,458

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

Leadership & pay

32 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dr James Burkee (President)
  • Mr Tom Jandris (Assistant to the President for Special Projects)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dr James Burkee (President): $462,375 total reported compensation
  • Dr Alexandra Adams (COO & EVP): $218,045 total reported compensation
  • Dr Andy Jett (EVP of Ops): $206,107 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Avila University is a Catholic university founded and inspired by the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet (CSJ).

What it reported doing in 2024

AVILA UNIVERSITY, LOCATED IN KANSAS CITY, MO, AND SERVING STUDENTS FROM ACROSS THE WORLD, BELIEVES IN OFFERING ACCESS TO EDUCATION WITHOUT LIMITS AND INVITING STUDENTS TO DEFINE WHAT THAT MEANS TO THEM PERSONALLY AS INDIVIDUALS AND COLLECTIVELY ACROSS CAMPUS. FOUNDED IN 1916 BY THE SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH OF CARONDELET, AVILA HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WHOLE PERSON FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY, PROVIDING A LIBERAL ARTS EDUCATION ROOTED IN VALUES OF SERVICE, DIVERSITY, EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING AND LEARNING. Avila University continues to grow and meet its mission of a being an institution of access. Building new programs, delivering education in innovative and relevant ways, helping students be workforce ready, and at the same time building them to have an impact on the larger community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 90% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 52% for direct work, and 48% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.2%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 87.6%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th 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: -2.7%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.71; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.55; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.7%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 91.2% of revenue deployed · 87.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $68.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $462K · 32 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.4M reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 38 current checks pass
  • 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: 10 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.