Olivet Nazarene University Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237063419
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Bourbonnais, IL, USA
Phone
8159395079
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,543,110
Expenses
$6,072,632
Assets
$202,009,992
Liabilities
$120,011,505

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR GREGG CHENOWETH (PRESIDENT)
  • MR MATTHEW FOOR (VICE PRESIDENT FOR FINANCE, CFO)
  • MR WOODY WEBB (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR GREGG CHENOWETH (PRESIDENT): $422,971 total reported compensation
  • MR MARCUS REDDY (VP OF ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT): $186,089 total reported compensation
  • DR STEPHEN LOWE (VP OF ACADEMIC AFFAIRS): $184,233 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Receive, administer, and expend funds for religious, educational, charitable, and scientific purposes in connection with promoting and assisting the educational services of olivet nazarene university.

What it reported doing in 2024

Funds provided for education programs, internships, and center student success from endowment earnings and current gifts, including funds for student scholarships at olivet nazarene university.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 52% for direct work, and 48% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 75
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 85%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 81%; rating input score 81; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: 51.6%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 33.27; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.59; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.4%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59% of revenue deployed · 85% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 21 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $423K · 27 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $897K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.