Loyola Marymount University

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
951643334
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
310.338.2700
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
University or Technological Institute

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$778,745,655
Expenses
$706,963,832
Assets
$1,915,840,992
Liabilities
$343,759,825

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

Leadership & pay

54 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • STANTON B JOHNSON III (MEN'S BASKETBALL COACH): $1,295,565 total reported compensation
  • TIMOTHY LAW SNYDER (PRES./TRUSTEE (UNTIL 5/30/25)): $1,237,126 total reported compensation
  • CRAIG PINTENS (ATHLETICS DIRECTOR): $699,785 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Loyola Marymount University is a Catholic, Jesuit, and Marymount university committed to the education of the whole person, the pursuit of justice, and the betterment of society.

What it reported doing in 2024

Loyola marymount university is an independent, coeducational university. In fiscal year 2025, lmu provided instruction, research, student services, and academic support for 10,179 full-time equivalent students. Of these students, 7,273 were undergraduates, 1,828 were in various graduate programs, and 1,078 were enrolled at loyola law school. Full time faculty employed was 677, part-time was 579, for a total faculty of 1,256.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 86% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 71% for direct work, and 29% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.7%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 83.3%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.3%; rating input score 97; 32nd 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: 9.2%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.71; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.4%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 77.7% of revenue deployed · 83.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 35 of 35 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $589.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.3M · 54 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $19.7M reported
  • Consistency: 46 of 48 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 14 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: 23 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.