Dakota Wesleyan University
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 460224589
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Mitchell, SD, USA
- Phone
- 6059952601
- Rating
- 88
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Undergraduate College (4-year)
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $32,497,119
- Expenses
- $33,255,442
- Assets
- $89,180,757
- Liabilities
- $17,807,030
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
38 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DAN KITTLE (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- DAN KITTLE (PRESIDENT): $306,500 total reported compensation
- DR DEREK DRIEDGER (PROVOST): $161,785 total reported compensation
- JODI LANDGAARD (VP OF FINANC): $138,183 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
As an inclusive educational community, Dakota Wesleyan University provides a transformative learning experience that cultivates enduring intellectual growth, ethically grounded leadership, intentional faith exploration and meaningful service. We’ve intentionally created DWU to be a place where you can grow intellectually and ethically, where you can find, apply and grow your innate strengths. DWU will build communities. DWU deeply values community and will work continually to strengthen it both within, and outside of, the university. DWU will creates opportunities. DWU believes that education represents the key to opportunity and supports learning in a variety of forms throughout individuals’ lives. 180704_14030.jpg.
What it reported doing in 2024
Provided instruction and other supporting services to approximately 906 full-time and part-time students.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 78% 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 62% for direct work, and 38% 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: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 91
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 48
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 88.2%; rating input score 88
- Program expense ratio: 85.9%; rating input score 86
- Fundraising efficiency: $11.6 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- 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: 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: -2.3%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.68; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.8%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site
- Where the money goes: 88.2% of revenue deployed · 85.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 35 of 35 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $28.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $306K · 38 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.