Palmer College of Chiropractic
Legal name: Palmer College Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 426081293
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2023
- Location
- Davenport, IA, USA
- Phone
- 5638845000
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Graduate, Professional Schools (Separate Entities)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $107,212,971
- Expenses
- $77,231,582
- Assets
- $343,544,806
- Liabilities
- $58,603,352
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
22 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DENNIS MARCHIORI DC PHD (PRESIDENT/CEO)
- DAN WEINERT DC (PROVOST/EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)
- WILLIAM SHERRIER DC MA (CAMPUS PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- DENNIS MARCHIORI DC PHD (PRESIDENT/CEO): $1,336,440 total reported compensation
- DAN WEINERT DC (PROVOST/EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT): $428,502 total reported compensation
- JENNIFER RANDAZZO (VICE CHANCELLOR FINANCE/TREASURER): $348,565 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 advance the chiropractic profession through education, research, and service.
What it reported doing in 2024
Palmer college operates chiropractic clinics to extend the student education from the classroom to direct patient care. The doctor of chiropractic degree is a 10 trimester program of which the final 1/3 is spent in the clinic setting working with patients. Student tuition reported above is used to offset the cost of clinic operations.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 87% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 60
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 78
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 57.2%; rating input score 57
- Program expense ratio: 73.7%; rating input score 74
- Fundraising efficiency: $8.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th 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: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 28%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.45; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 57.2% of revenue deployed · 73.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $56.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.3M · 22 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.3M reported
- Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
- Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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.
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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.