Bryan College
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 620528217
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Dayton, TN, USA
- Phone
- 4237752041
- Rating
- 85
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Undergraduate College (4-year)
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $27,805,158
- Expenses
- $26,819,836
- Assets
- $56,404,431
- Liabilities
- $17,025,450
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DOUGLAS MANN (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- DOUGLAS MANN (PRESIDENT): $208,177 total reported compensation
- TIMOTHY HOSTETLER (SVP BUSINESS OPS & FINANCE): $124,387 total reported compensation
- PAMELA GILES (DEAN OF CLARA WARD SCHOOL OF NURSING): $124,292 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The purpose of technology resources at Bryan College is to support the college’s mission of educating students to become servants of Christ to make a difference in today’s world. The primary purpose of the networks and Internet access and other college resources is to provide academic resources to help students achieve their scholastic goals. Other legal uses of the networks including gaming, entertainment, socializing, and all other activities not directly related to the pursuit of academic excellence are not prohibited, but will not be afforded the same level of support as resources pertaining to the primary purpose of the college’s computer networks. Policy.
What it reported doing in 2024
Instructional instruction is provided to approximately 1,601 students in various programs throughout the academic year. This includes both undergraduate and graduate programs.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 83% 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 75% for direct work, and 25% 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: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 87
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 55
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 87.7%; rating input score 88
- Program expense ratio: 88%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $3.66 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 3.5%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.1; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 87.7% of revenue deployed · 88% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $23.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $208K · 18 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2M reported
- Consistency: 36 of 36 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: 6 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 14/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.