Pfeiffer University

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
560529990
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Misenheimer, NC, USA
Phone
800-338-2060
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
University or Technological Institute

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$36,936,438
Expenses
$38,383,882
Assets
$62,332,738
Liabilities
$38,392,414

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

Leadership & pay

36 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SCOTT BULLARD (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SCOTT BULLARD (PRESIDENT): $273,300 total reported compensation
  • DANIEL MYNATT (PROVOST AND VP FOR ACADEMI): $179,575 total reported compensation
  • ROBIN LESLIE (SENIOR VP OF FNANCE AND CF): $171,876 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Pfeiffer University is a comprehensive university that prepares leaders in health care, business, education, the arts, ministry, and many other disciplines, with graduates who care most about serving others through their vocations.

What it reported doing in 2024

In the 2024-2025 academic year, the francis center for servant leadership and faith formation engaged students, staff, and other volunteers in a total of 1325 hours of community service. In addition, other university areas participated in 950 hours of service. Therefore, the total number of hours equals 2275 hours.highlights for the year include: community service through habitat for humanity, stanly community christian ministry, backpack buddies, moving in first time students, wreaths across america and more. These community service activies range from on site work, item collection, and assembling items on campus and delivering to the agency. The francis center worked with local churches to provide a good neighbor pantry in pfeiffer's chapel for students and neighbors get food or hygiene items they need without judgment and participated in a community trunk or treat. Student athletes conducted a canned food drive and christmas toy drive, and assisted with a special olympics day. Other student clubs/groups collected school supplies and hygiene items.these activies provided on and off campus activies for students to participate in service learning. Some activities were hands on with community members, such as serving at a mobile food pantry where students helped community members "shop" for free groceries or working the special olympics providing support for adults with special needs. Other activies were hands on activities to assemble items for later use by community members, such as assembling weekend food bags for local school children, making cards for local students during end of grade testing, or making blankets for survivors of domestic violence. Collection drives included canned food, school supplies, clothing, and christmas toys for kids.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 84% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 60% for direct work, and 40% for grants.
  • 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.4%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 88.5%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • 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: 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: -3.9%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.62; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.62; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.7%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 90.4% of revenue deployed · 88.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $34M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $273K · 36 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4.7M reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
  • 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: 12 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.