Morthland Institution of Higher Learning
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 270725461
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2015
- Forms available
- Form 990 2015
- Location
- West Frankfort, IL, USA
- Phone
- 6189372127
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Undergraduate College (4-year)
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,487,596
- Expenses
- $2,972,964
- Assets
- $3,956,352
- Liabilities
- $2,306,193
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- TIMOTHY MORTHLAND (PRESIDENT OF MORTHLAND COLLEGE)
- EMILY HAYES (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF MORTHLAND COLLEGE)
- STEPHEN RHOADS (VICE PRESIDENT OF DEVELOPMENT)
Highest reported compensation
- TIMOTHY MORTHLAND (PRESIDENT OF MORTHLAND COLLEGE): $46,250 total reported compensation
- EMILY HAYES (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF MORTHLAND COLLEGE): $46,250 total reported compensation
- RHETTA BAKER (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $21,975 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide a premier christian educational experience to learners within a setting committed to christ, wisdom, tradition, and heritage. Morthland is faith-based and interdenominational with founding principles rooted in the centrality of jesus christ, his word, and the church. We embrace wisdom by forming a community of scholars who affirm our core values and continue to engage in academic discourse. We endorse tradition in the learning process by encouraging the consonance of biblical instruction with a broad education. We uphold heritage by recognizing the christian foundations of our country and by preparing students to contribute to society in the spirit of servant leadership.
What it reported doing in 2015
Auxiliary services - auxiliary enterprises support the mission of morthland college by providing essential services to the campus community. They are enterprises in that they are generally self-supporting activities, recovering their costs through the fees or prices they charge for their goods or services. At morthland college, auxiliary enterprises are designed to deliver superior quality services that are expected by the students, faculty, staff, and alumni.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 62% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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.
- 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 71
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 62
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 63.8%; rating input score 64
- Program expense ratio: 74.9%; rating input score 75
- Fundraising efficiency: $363.02 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 65th 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: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 14.8%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.33; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.58; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 67.2% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 50.7% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 31.9% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 63.8% of revenue deployed · 74.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $46K · 18 people listed
- Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2013 to 2015
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.