Morehouse College

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
580566205
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2008
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
(470) 639-0999
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$179,340,590
Expenses
$167,267,944
Assets
$577,043,285
Liabilities
$28,317,655

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

Leadership & pay

42 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR DAVID A THOMAS (PRESIDENT)
  • NINA GILBERT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF EXCELLENCE)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR DAVID A THOMAS (PRESIDENT): $738,980 total reported compensation
  • KINNIS GOSHA (PROFESSOR): $360,911 total reported compensation
  • KAREN MILLER (CAO & SVP COLLEGE SECRETARY): $341,910 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Morehouse College is a private, historically black liberal arts college for men. Its mission is to develop men with disciplined minds who will lead lives of leadership and service.

What it reported doing in 2024

Providing higher education to students under a degree program. Instruction to over 2,100 undergraduate students in curricula such as education, sciences, humanities, and math. The college provides its students with the highest quality of education in an academically progressive environment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 66% 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.

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: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 98
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.2%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 66.2%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.74 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • 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: 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: 96.4%; rating input score 96; 51st 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: 6.7%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.45; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 10 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 63.2% of revenue deployed · 66.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 27 of 28 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $110.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $739K · 42 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $26.1M reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 10 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: 15 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.
  • 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: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.