Earlham College

Legal name: Earlham College Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
350868073
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Richmond, IN, USA
Phone
(765) 983-1200
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$86,888,119
Expenses
$101,181,074
Assets
$335,465,324
Liabilities
$87,334,477

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

Leadership & pay

41 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Anne Houtman (President (until Aug 2024))
  • Paul Sniegowski (President (beg Oct 2024))
  • Scot Schaeffer (Vice President of Enrollment Management)

Highest reported compensation

  • Scot Schaeffer (Vice President of Enrollment Management): $229,979 total reported compensation
  • Kimberly Tanner (VP for Institutional Advancement): $227,025 total reported compensation
  • Bonita Washington-Lacy (VP of Student Life/Dean of Students): $225,073 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Earlham College is a national liberal arts college that educates students to build a just and peaceful world. The College is guided by its Quaker heritage and values of integrity, community, equality, and stewardship.

What it reported doing in 2024

Earlham College - Providing high quality liberal arts education for 677 students (729 including Earlham School of Religion) per IPEDS reporting. Serving the local community through arts, music, and cultural events open to the public. Students volunteer with many community service organizations. Approximately 2,500 people in the local community are served in this way.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 58% for direct work, and 42% 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. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 93
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.6%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 84.8%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.8%; rating input score 96; 49th 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: -16.4%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.32; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.1%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 99.6% of revenue deployed · 84.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 24 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $85.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $230K · 41 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $7.6M reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 38 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 12 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 22 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 55/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.