Gannon University

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
250496976
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Erie, PA, US
Phone
1-800-GANNON-U
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
University or Technological Institute

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$159,593,681
Expenses
$161,138,438
Assets
$429,284,630
Liabilities
$110,008,832

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

Leadership & pay

46 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Walter Iwanenko (President)
  • Keith Taylor (Executive Advisor, President Emeritus)
  • Mahesh Aggarwal (Board Member/President Faculty Senate)
  • Matthew Nichilo (Board Member/Student Government President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Walter Iwanenko (President): $541,058 total reported compensation
  • Keith Taylor (Executive Advisor, President Emeritus): $394,730 total reported compensation
  • Jennifer Lundy (VP for Finance & Campus Operations): $263,005 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Gannon University is a Catholic university that offers a variety of opportunities for students to deepen their understanding of faith and act on their values, preparing them to make professional and personal choices grounded in strong values and integrity.

What it reported doing in 2024

Research - The University conducts research across several specialized fields, including PA Manufacturing, the Beehive, and PA Space. In the PA Manufacturing sector, research teams collaborate with local manufacturers to develop tailored solutions for complex operational challenges. The Beehive initiative assists emerging organizations by developing earnings reports and key performance indicators (KPIs). Finally, PA Space conducts near-space experiments to collect data and analyze critical findings.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 91% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.6%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 83.2%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • 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: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 45th 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: -1%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.66; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.1%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 84.6% of revenue deployed · 83.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 32 of 34 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $134M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $541K · 46 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $14.4M reported
  • Consistency: 45 of 45 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 11 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: 14 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 scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.