Claremont Lincoln University

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
451171945
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Claremont, CA, USA
Phone
9096674400
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Graduate, Professional Schools (Separate Entities)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$15,225,031
Expenses
$14,045,856
Assets
$31,762,535
Liabilities
$3,651,960

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LYNN PRIDDY (PRESIDENT / CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • LYNN PRIDDY (PRESIDENT / CEO): $456,531 total reported compensation
  • MARK MENDOZA (COO / CFO): $352,719 total reported compensation
  • JOANNA BAUER (EXECUTIVE VP AND CAO): $348,993 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See schedule o

What it reported doing in 2024

Claremont lincoln university (clu) is committed to accessible, inclusive, and innovative education for working adults seeking alternatives to traditional university models. Clu offers a bachelor's degree completion program in organizational leadership, alongside six master's degrees and eight graduate certificates in fields like land policy, healthcare administration, human resources, organizational leadership, and sustainability leadership. At the core is the claremont core, an integrated model that builds ethical, mindful, and dialogue-driven leadership skills. This prepares graduates to create positive change in their communities and workplaces, advancing clu's mission to foster societal progress through education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 87
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.7%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 64.5%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • 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: 77.8%; rating input score 78; 14th 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: 7.7%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.26; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.7% of revenue deployed · 64.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 18 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $9.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $457K · 26 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.7M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 22 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.

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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.