Lake Forest College
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 362167770
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Lake Forest, IL, USA
- Phone
- 8472343100
- Rating
- 87
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Undergraduate College (4-year)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $165,068,732
- Expenses
- $155,459,424
- Assets
- $287,159,838
- Liabilities
- $55,480,077
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
50 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Jill Baren (President (until 12/10/24))
- Robert D Krebs (Interim President)
- Christopher Ellertson (Vice President for Campus Life)
Highest reported compensation
- Jill Baren (President (until 12/10/24)): $736,020 total reported compensation
- Lori Sundberg (VP for Finance/Planning; Treasurer): $295,540 total reported compensation
- Christopher Ellertson (Vice President for Campus Life): $268,500 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Lake Forest College affirms that education ennobles the individual—engaging students in the liberal arts and helping them become responsible citizens of the global community. Lake Forest College affirms that education ennobles the individual. Our curriculum engages students in the breadth of the liberal arts and the depth of traditional disciplines. We encourage students to read critically, reason analytically, communicate persuasively, and, above all, to think for themselves. We prepare our students for, and help them attain, productive and rewarding careers. We foster creative talent and independent research. We embrace cultural diversity. We honor achievement. Our faculty of distinguished scholars takes pride in its commitment to teaching. We know our students by name and prepare them to become responsible citizens of the global community. We.
What it reported doing in 2024
Student services are considered programmatic and include activities that contribute to student emotional and physical well-being and intellectual, cultural and social development outside the formal instructional program.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 74% 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 44% for direct work, and 56% 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 reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 87
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 60
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 85.4%; rating input score 85
- Program expense ratio: 89.8%; rating input score 90
- Fundraising efficiency: $17.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- 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: 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: 5.8%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.85; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.2%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 85.4% of revenue deployed · 89.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 34 of 34 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $139.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $736K · 50 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $13.6M reported
- Consistency: 38 of 38 current checks pass
- Schedules: 12 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: 14 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 54/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.