Mercersburg Academy
Legal name: Regents of the Mercersburg College
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 231365963
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Mercersburg, PA, US
- Phone
- 717-328-5231
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Secondary, High School
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $89,998,057
- Expenses
- $55,243,537
- Assets
- $645,749,569
- Liabilities
- $54,385,798
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
35 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- THOMAS B HADZOR (PRESIDENT)
- AMY JONES SATROM (VICE PRESIDENT)
- G AMES PRENTISS (VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- QUENTIN MCDOWELL (HEAD OF SCHOOL): $670,644 total reported compensation
- ROCHELLE HARGRAVES (CFO/COO): $398,295 total reported compensation
- JOHN RICHARDSON (CHIEF ADVANCEMENT OFFICER): $285,618 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Mercersburg Academy provides a transformational education that prepares students for college and for life as global citizens.
What it reported doing in 2024
An independent college-preparatory school in south-central Pennsylvania, the academy offers a rigorous academic program to approximately 445 boarding and day students in grades 9 through 12. In small classes, students and faculty work eye to eye and mind to mind, as they deepen their understanding of their subjectsand of themselves. Outside the classroom, students immerse themselves in theater, sports, music, competitions, and camaraderie. They develop deep friendships with students from next door and from across the world. They explore new concepts and push past their limits. Mercersburg is a place of transformation. Students transform themselvesas they prepare to transform their world.
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 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 67
- Transparency & Controls: 70
- Accountability: 98
- Sustainability: 83
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 68.2%; rating input score 68
- Program expense ratio: 76.4%; rating input score 76
- Fundraising efficiency: $7.16 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 96%; rating input score 96; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 38.6%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.69; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.5%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 68.2% of revenue deployed · 76.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 24 of 25 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $42.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $671K · 35 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.4M reported
- Consistency: 39 of 39 current checks pass
- Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.