Hanover College

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
350868096
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Hanover, IN, USA
Phone
8128667000
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$113,863,379
Expenses
$90,999,687
Assets
$291,648,740
Liabilities
$35,751,755

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

Leadership & pay

40 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR LAKE LAMBERT (PRESIDENT)
  • Peter Ashley (Vice President for Enrollment and Marketing)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR LAKE LAMBERT (PRESIDENT): $357,379 total reported compensation
  • CHRISTINA TRAN (FOUNDING DEAN AND CLINICAL PROFESSOR SCHOOL OF VET MEDICINE): $237,500 total reported compensation
  • CAREY ADAMS (PROVOST AND VP FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS): $202,479 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Hanover College provides a transformative liberal arts education that prepares students for lives of purpose and leadership.

What it reported doing in 2024

College: instructional salaries, student financial aid and other costs which are incurred to provide educational opportunities for the students. Approximately 1,028 students attended hanover during the year. For fy25, the doctor of physical therapy (dpt) program had 107 students. For fy25, the doctor of occupational therapy (otd) program had 101 students.

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 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 91.3%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • 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: 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: 20.1%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.2; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.9%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 74% of revenue deployed · 91.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 32 of 32 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $83.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $357K · 40 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $17.3M reported
  • Consistency: 41 of 42 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 10 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: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.