Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
251698677
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Erie, PA, USA
Phone
(814) 866-6641
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Graduate, Professional Schools (Separate Entities)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$230,492,050
Expenses
$134,394,858
Assets
$1,180,027,575
Liabilities
$121,756,943

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN M FERRETTI DO (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • SILVIA M FERRETTI DO (PROVOST/VP OF ACADEMICS): $1,766,916 total reported compensation
  • JOHN M FERRETTI DO (PRESIDENT/CEO): $1,609,483 total reported compensation
  • MARY L ECKERT (SECRETARY): $723,538 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide excellence in medical education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Lecom is one of the 45 colleges of osteopathic medicine. In 1992, the lake erie college of osteopathic medicine received pre-accreditation status from the american osteopathic association. After further preparation, lecom achieved a charter from the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and full accreditation status. Lecom also has full accreditation status with the american council of pharmaceutical education. It is one of over 140 pharmacy schools in the united states. Lecom has full accreditation status with the american dental association's commission on dental accreditation. It is one of 70 dental schools in the united states. The school of podiatric medicine has accreditation status from the council on podiatric medical education (cpme). It is one of 11 podiatric medical schools in the united states. The goal of lake erie college of osteopathic medicine is to educate qualified students to become osteopathic physicians imbued with the philosophical principles of osteopathic medicine. It is the stated purpose of the college to educate and develop family physicians in the osteopathic tradition. At the same time, it proposes to provide its students with firm academic background so that those who wish may advance further into the osteopathic specialties or academic careers, particularly for and with osteopathic colleges. The goal of the school of pharmacy and school of dental medicine is to prepare pharmacy and dental professionals who are committed to provide high-quality, ethical, and empathetic patient-centered care to serve the needs of a diverse population.three academic doctoral degrees are currently conferred at lecom. The doctor of osteopathy (do), the doctor of pharmacy, and the doctor of dental medicine are awarded to graduates who have satisfactorily fulfilled the requirements for graduation. The first medical classes began on august 9, 1993 and 61 students enrolled. The college began a school of pharmacy in the fall of 2002. First classes for the school of dental medicine began in august, 2012. For the fiscal year ended june 30, 2025, there were 4,300 medical, pharmacy, dental, post-baccalaureate, and masters students enrolled. The college has four campuses: erie, Pennsylvania, greensburg, Pennsylvania, bradenton, Florida and elmira, New York.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 78% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most filed governance safeguards are in place. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 67
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 42.2%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 78.3%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 31st 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: 96%; rating input score 96; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 44.4%; rating input score 44; 12th 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: 41.7%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.78; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 4 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 42.2% of revenue deployed · 78.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $105.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.8M · 16 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3M reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 40 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 12 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: 12 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 18 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 44/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.