LeTourneau University

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
751081109
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Longview, TX, US
Phone
1-903-233-3000
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
University or Technological Institute
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$123,878,799
Expenses
$83,804,323
Assets
$158,161,808
Liabilities
$13,899,817

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

Leadership & pay

35 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Steven D Mason (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dale A Lunsford (Former Chancellor, Advisor Ended: 12/25): $496,115 total reported compensation
  • Steven D Mason (President): $423,066 total reported compensation
  • Benjamin W Caldwell (Provost): $197,301 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

LeTourneau University is a comprehensive institution of Christian higher education where educators engage learners to nurture Christian virtue, to develop competency and ingenuity in their professional fields, to integrate faith and work, and to serve the local and global community.

What it reported doing in 2024

LeTourneau University's primary program service is the delivery of oncampus undergraduate education at its Longview, Texas campus. The University offers degree programs in engineering, technology, liberal arts, nursing, business, aeronautical science, education, and the sciences. LeTourneau University is consistently ranked by U.S. News & World Report in the top tier among regional universities in the West. During the year ended June 30, 2025, the University served approximately 1,650 students through classroom instruction, labs, academic advising, and student support services, fulfilling its exempt educational mission.

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 69% for direct work, and 31% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 93
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.4%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.35 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • 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: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 96.3%; rating input score 96; 51st 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: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 32.3%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.89; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 56.4% of revenue deployed · 82.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 26 of 27 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $69.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $496K · 35 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $16.3M reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 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.

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: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.