Newman University

Legal name: Newman University Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
480556716
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
Wichita, Kansas, United States
Phone
316-942-4291 ext. 2163
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$44,932,713
Expenses
$45,672,889
Assets
$68,684,442
Liabilities
$17,745,815

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

Leadership & pay

35 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KATHLEEN JAGGER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KATHLEEN JAGGER (PRESIDENT): $310,354 total reported compensation
  • KIMYATTA BRENT (DIRECTOR OF DNAP PROGRAM): $240,085 total reported compensation
  • Thomas Watson (Assistant Program Administrator DNAP): $202,367 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Newman University is a Catholic university named for St. John Henry Newman and founded by the Adorers of the Blood of Christ for the purpose of empowering graduates to transform society.

What it reported doing in 2024

Newman university provided educational programs and courses for 6,698 students who enrolled in 49,915 credit hours. 401 degrees were issued by the university. Newman university students and staff provided over 245,000 volunteer hours of service to the local community and non-profit agencies.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 86% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 53% for direct work, and 47% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.3%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 78.5%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.48 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 6 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 96.3%; rating input score 96; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -1.6%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.5; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 4 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 81.3% of revenue deployed · 78.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 26 of 27 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $35.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $310K · 35 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.1M reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 40 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 11 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: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.