National University of Health Sciences
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 361521940
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2022
- Location
- Lombard, IL, USA
- Phone
- 6306292000
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $26,482,727
- Expenses
- $24,295,371
- Assets
- $62,476,170
- Liabilities
- $10,384,934
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOSEPH PD STIEFEL MS EDD DC (PRESIDENT)
- RANDY L SWENSON DC MHPE (VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- JOSEPH PD STIEFEL MS EDD DC (PRESIDENT): $342,667 total reported compensation
- RANDY L SWENSON DC MHPE (VICE PRESIDENT): $185,602 total reported compensation
- RONALD MENSCHING BS (TREASURER): $184,100 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide and promote the necessary leadership, management and resources for the advancement of education, new knowledge, outreach, and the ethical practice of the healing arts and sciences as taught within the programs of this university.
What it reported doing in 2024
Instruction - college of professional studies, college of allied health sciences, lincoln college, Florida program, resident program
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 93% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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.
- 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 64
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 76%; rating input score 76
- Program expense ratio: 76.7%; rating input score 77
- Fundraising efficiency: $4.02 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 90.2%; rating input score 90; 20th 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; 66th 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: 8.3%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.57; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.2%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 76% of revenue deployed · 76.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $18.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $343K · 14 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $131K reported
- Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- 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: 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.
- 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 16/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.