McKendree University

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
370661219
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Lebanon, IL, USA
Phone
(800) BEARCAT
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$73,713,589
Expenses
$75,068,292
Assets
$108,693,642
Liabilities
$40,884,004

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

Leadership & pay

42 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Daniel C Dobbins (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Daniel C Dobbins (President): $394,595 total reported compensation
  • Stephen Kull (VP for Institutional Advancement): $179,157 total reported compensation
  • Daryl Hancock (VP for Operations): $176,929 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of McKendree University is to provide a high quality educational experience to outstanding students. We guide our students in the pursuit of academic excellence, which will prepare them for leadership roles in our society. To achieve this end we encourage broader vision, enriched purpose, engagement with community, commitment to responsible citizenship, openness to new ideas and dedication to lifelong learning. In keeping with our history and traditions, we provide our students with a rigorous, broadly based liberal arts curriculum joined with specialization in a specific discipline. We cherish our historical relationship with the United Methodist Church and its tradition of Judeo-Christian ideals. Therefore, we encourage an atmosphere of open dialogue, free inquiry, and mutual respect, conducted among students from diverse backgrounds.

What it reported doing in 2024

Instruction and Academic Support - We offer undergraduate, graduate and professional programs to develop our students' knowledge, analytical abilities, research capabilities, creativity, and sense of identity. We offer an intellectual and technological environment supportive of innovative and effective teaching , research, assessment and communication, excellent writing and oral skills, and decision making.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 92% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 98
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.7%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 91.7%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.6 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 18; 18th 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: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 97.1%; rating input score 97; 53rd 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: -1.8%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.45; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.38; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.7%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 94.7% of revenue deployed · 91.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 34 of 35 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $68.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $395K · 42 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $8.8M reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 39 current checks pass
  • 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: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 18/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.