Clark Atlanta University

Legal name: Clark Atlanta University Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581825259
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Phone
(404) 880-8000
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
University or Technological Institute

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$208,620,809
Expenses
$188,133,067
Assets
$397,241,326
Liabilities
$29,737,889

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

Leadership & pay

54 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Charlene Gilbert (Provost and Senior Vice President, Academic Affairs)
  • Cherise Peters (Vice President for Enrollment Management and Student Life)
  • Cynthia Gomes (Vice President, Business and Auxiliary Services)
  • Eli Phillips (Executive Vice President and COO)
  • George French Jr (President)
  • Kimberlee Parker (Vice President for Compliance)

Highest reported compensation

  • George French Jr (President): $601,099 total reported compensation
  • Eli Phillips (Executive Vice President and COO): $471,544 total reported compensation
  • Christopher Lee (Senior Vice President and CFO): $420,114 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Clark Atlanta University is a leader in scholarship, innovation, and service, preparing students to discover their personal ambitions and professional purpose through rigorous academic exploration and faculty mentorship.

What it reported doing in 2024

Instruction: clark atlanta university (cau), formed in 1988 as a result of the consolidation of two independent historically black institutions - atlanta university (1865) and clark college (1869), is a united methodist church related, private, coeducational, residential, and comprehensive urban institution. The university awards bachelors, masters, specialist and doctoral degrees.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 66% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.

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: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.1%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 78.5%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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; 77th 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; 77th 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: 9.8%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.11; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 73.1% of revenue deployed · 78.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 27 of 27 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $147.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $601K · 54 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $11.5M reported
  • Consistency: 43 of 43 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 26 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.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.