Beacon College

Legal name: Beacon College Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
592961536
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Leesburg, Florida, US
Phone
(855) 220-5374
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$40,961,104
Expenses
$39,623,164
Assets
$40,741,397
Liabilities
$21,604,452

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR GEORGE J HAGERTY (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR GEORGE J HAGERTY (PRESIDENT): $539,922 total reported compensation
  • DR BRAD HOUGH (CIO): $237,371 total reported compensation
  • RICHARD KILLION (VP OF INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT): $218,683 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Beacon College is dedicated exclusively to the undergraduate preparation of students who learn differently (those diagnosed with LD, ADHD, AD, ASD).

What it reported doing in 2024

Beacon was founded by parents in order to make a superior higher education accessible to students with learning differences. When established in 1989, the college was granted the approval of the Florida department of education to offer a focused liberal arts-based curriculum aligned specifically to the learning styles, specialized instructional and lifestyle development needs of these students. Beacon is a fully accreditated four-year private liberal arts college for students seeking associate's and bachelor's degrees. Beacon's campus in leesburg, Florida currently serves more than 500 degree-seeking students and hundreds more in its transitional programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 89% 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 69% for direct work, and 31% 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. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.6%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 84.1%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • 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: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th 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: 3.3%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.03; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.53; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.2%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 81.6% of revenue deployed · 84.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 14 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $33.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $540K · 23 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.5M reported
  • Consistency: 42 of 43 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 14 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 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.

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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.
  • 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.