Benedict College

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
570314365
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2023
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2023, Form 990-T 2023
Location
Columbia, SC, US
Phone
803-253-5000
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$52,764,064
Expenses
$51,256,399
Assets
$143,943,592
Liabilities
$38,583,353

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dr Roslyn Clark Artis (President & CEO)
  • Dr Janeen Witty (Vice President for Academic Affairs)
  • Dr Leanda Hayes-Burgess (Vice President for Institutional Advancement)
  • Mr Jacob Koon (Vice President for Student Affairs)
  • Dr Sharron Burnett (Vice President for Finance & Operations)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dr Roslyn Clark Artis (President & CEO): $601,579 total reported compensation
  • Dr Leanda Hayes-Burgess (Vice President for Institutional Advancement): $157,590 total reported compensation
  • Dr Janeen Witty (Vice President for Academic Affairs): $154,500 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To prepare a diverse student population from the United States and around the world to become lifelong learners, productive citizens, and creative leaders in a global, technologically advanced society.

What it reported doing in 2023

Auxiliary enterprises - the colleges dormitories, dining hall and campus store are the major auxiliary enterprises serving the college community. Eight residence halls provided quarters for approximately 1,183 students for the fall 2023 semester and approximately 1,034 students for the spring 2024 semester.

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 64% for direct work, and 36% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 49
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.7%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 61.9%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $30.63 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • 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: 50%; rating input score 50; 11th 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; 78th 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: 2.9%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.81; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 62.7% of revenue deployed · 61.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $31.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $602K · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.