Queens University of Charlotte
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 560530003
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2023
- Official website data refreshed
- Aug 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2023, Form 990-N 2009
- Location
- Charlotte, NC, US
- Phone
- 704-337-2200
- Rating
- 88
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- University or Technological Institute
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $91,815,282
- Expenses
- $119,670,089
- Assets
- $171,525,098
- Liabilities
- $125,058,555
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
51 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DANIEL J LUGO (PRESIDENT, EX-OFFICIO, B.O.T.)
Highest reported compensation
- DANIEL J LUGO (PRESIDENT, EX-OFFICIO, B.O.T.): $758,643 total reported compensation
- RICHARD MAJERUS (VP PLANNING & STRATEGY): $347,240 total reported compensation
- ADRIENNE ODDI (VP STRATEGIC ENROLLMENT & COMM): $334,132 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Queens University of Charlotte is a private university in Charlotte, North Carolina, focused on providing a transformative educational experience that prepares students for meaningful careers and lives of purpose.
What it reported doing in 2023
Queens university of charlotte is a private, co-ed, presbyterian affiliated comprehensive university with a commitment to both liberal arts and professional studies. Located in the heart of historic charlotte, queens serves approximately 1,465 undergraduate and 594 graduate students through its college of arts and sciences, mccoll school of business, the blair college of health, the presbyterian school of nursing, wayland h. Cato, jr. School of education, the knight school of communication and hayworth school of graduate and continuing studies.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 87% 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: 100
- Accountability: 98
- Sustainability: 24
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 98.5%; rating input score 99
- Program expense ratio: 77.4%; rating input score 77
- Fundraising efficiency: $4.35 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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; 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: 97.4%; rating input score 97; 54th 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: -30.3%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.43; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.73; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.1%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 98.5% of revenue deployed · 77.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 37 of 38 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $92.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $759K · 51 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $16.4M reported
- Consistency: 39 of 39 current checks pass
- Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2023
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 19/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.