Clarkson College

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363649217
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Omaha, NE, US
Phone
402.552.3100
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$40,921,822
Expenses
$42,101,638
Assets
$35,751,395
Liabilities
$8,776,026

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • James Linder MD (Director/NM CEO Designee)
  • James T Canedy MD (Director/CRHS CEO Designee)
  • Dr Andreia Nebel (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • James Linder MD (Director/NM CEO Designee): $2,775,089 total reported compensation
  • Matthew E Pospisil (Secretary): $569,975 total reported compensation
  • Dr Andreia Nebel (President): $317,364 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Clarkson College prepares students to be highly skilled and compassionate healthcare professionals through excellence in education, service, and research.

What it reported doing in 2024

Tuition & Fees Clarkson College has prepared students to professionally provide high quality, ethical and compassionate healthcare services since 1888. Over more than 130 years, we've established a new campus, expanded our healthcare education program offerings and adopted a new name. All the while, we've maintained a commitment to preparing our students to be the best in various realms of healthcare. This commitment to excellence has and always will remain a defining quality of Clarkson College. Clarkson College offers certificate and degree opportunities (including bachelors, masters, and doctoral) in the fields of Nursing, Healthcare Business, Community Health, Healthcare Education Leadership, Health Information Management, Physical Therapist Assistant, Psychology, Radiography & Medical Imaging, Medical Imaging Informatics and Professional Development. The College has maintained continuous accreditation with the Higher Learning Commission North Center Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA) since 1984.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 72% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 57% for direct work, 42% for grants, and 1% for affiliated organizations.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 88.8%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 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: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -2.9%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.85; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.4%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 44th 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: 92% of revenue deployed · 88.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $37.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2.8M · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $25.3M reported
  • Consistency: 45 of 45 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 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: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 6 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.