Meharry Medical College

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
620488046
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Nashville, TN, US
Phone
(615) 327-6000
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Graduate, Professional Schools (Separate Entities)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$234,140,557
Expenses
$226,999,755
Assets
$587,383,696
Liabilities
$144,650,569

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

Leadership & pay

60 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES E K HILDRETH (PRESIDENT/CEO)
  • JUAN MCGRUDER (SR VICE PRESIDENT INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT)
  • PETER E MILLET (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ANIL SHANKER (SR VICE PRESIDENT RESEARCH AND INNOVATION)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES E K HILDRETH (PRESIDENT/CEO): $950,874 total reported compensation
  • LAMEL BANDY-NEAL (SENIOR VP FINANCE/CFO (RETIRED)): $712,457 total reported compensation
  • SONJA HARRIS-HAYWOOD (DEAN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE): $595,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Meharry Medical College is a historically black academic health sciences center dedicated to educating physicians, dentists, researchers, and health policy experts who will advance health equity and serve underserved communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Medical reserach, general/other: the organization does research in a number of major areas (cancer, cardiovascular, neuroscience, seat belt safety, along with research training, and HIV disease, infectious disease, women's health, community engagement) with a primary focus on health disparities research.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 53
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.3%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 91.5%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 28.4%; rating input score 28; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.6%; rating input score 93; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.59; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 90.3% of revenue deployed · 91.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 27 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $207.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $951K · 60 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.4M reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 11 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: 35 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.

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 scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.