Lancaster Bible College

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
231484178
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lancaster, PA, USA
Phone
7175697071
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$47,366,909
Expenses
$47,981,758
Assets
$88,991,115
Liabilities
$32,276,083

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR THOMAS KIEDIS (PRESIDENT)
  • JAEL KDLV CHAMBERS (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR THOMAS KIEDIS (PRESIDENT): $273,411 total reported compensation
  • JAEL KDLV CHAMBERS (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT): $171,380 total reported compensation
  • TRICIA WILSON (PROVOST): $164,697 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

LBC prepares students to flourish in college and life, from the conviction that Christ is real and the Bible is true. Located near downtown Lancaster and Lititz, the campus provides access to rich cultural and dining experiences. Under the leadership of President Thomas L. Kiedis, LBC continues to advance its mission of equipping students to think, live, and serve with a biblical worldview. Our Mission To educate Christian students to think and live a biblical worldview and to proclaim Christ by serving Him in the Church and society. Collaboration.** We work with others to accomplish our mission. Innovation.** We strive to continually improve to give God our best. Servanthood.** We serve others to bring out their best.

What it reported doing in 2024

Lancaster bible college educates approximately 2200 christian postsecondary students to think and live a biblical world view and to proclaim christ by serving him in the church and society.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 86% 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 73% for direct work, and 27% 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 93.6%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.9%; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 28th 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: Fail
    • 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: -1.3%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.85; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 97% of revenue deployed · 93.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 19 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $44.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $273K · 25 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 39 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: 2 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.