Baker College

Legal name: Baker University

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
480543766
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Baldwin City, KS, USA
Phone
231-876-3614
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
University or Technological Institute

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$51,775,622
Expenses
$58,782,883
Assets
$107,195,495
Liabilities
$26,631,258

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

Leadership & pay

30 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HOOT GIBSON (TRUSTEE/PRESIDENT (BEGAN 01/2025))
  • ALAN SALTS (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)
  • LYNNE E MURRAY (PRESIDENT (ENDED 12/2024))
  • DARLA PRATHER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE)

Highest reported compensation

  • LYNNE E MURRAY (PRESIDENT (ENDED 12/2024)): $361,459 total reported compensation
  • NORMAN HOUSER (ASSOC VP FOR ADVANCEMENT): $202,593 total reported compensation
  • MATTHEW BICE (DEAN OF SPGS/GSOE): $200,609 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Baker College prepares graduates to be successful through career-focused education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Baker university provides undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral students with the knowledge and skills necessary to become a successful member of any community. Baker's 2,500 combined student body continues a long tradition of gaining the knowledge and confidence to set high goals and attain them. Baker university was founded on february 12, 1858, in baldwin city, Kansas. The school of professional and graduate studies was formed in 1988. The school of nursing was formed in 1991. The school of education was formed in 2005.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 86% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% 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: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.4%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 83.5%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • 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: 95.5%; rating input score 95; 48th 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -13.5%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.82; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 97.4% of revenue deployed · 83.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 22 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $49.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $361K · 30 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.2M reported
  • Consistency: 46 of 47 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 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.
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.
  • 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.