Southern California University of Health Sciences

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
950948050
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Whittier, CA, US
Phone
562-947-8755
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Graduate, Professional Schools (Separate Entities)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$58,961,495
Expenses
$57,864,618
Assets
$55,372,226
Liabilities
$8,240,067

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN SCARINGE (PRESIDENT)
  • JIM BRENNER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF MARKETING)
  • JOSEPH HORRIGAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN PERFORMANCE)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN SCARINGE (PRESIDENT): $701,562 total reported compensation
  • TAMARA ROZHON (PROVOST): $378,604 total reported compensation
  • TOM ARENDT (VP FINANCE & BUSINESS AFFAIRS/CFO): $349,388 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 educate students as competent, caring and successful practitioners of integrative healthcare. The university is committed to providing excellence in academics, scholarship, service and leadership through its offerings of bachelor, master and doctorate programs.

What it reported doing in 2024

The scu research department supports a growing research enterprise focused on advancing knowledge in integrative, whole-person healthcare and improving patient outcomes. Guided by scu's whole health approach, research activities align with the university's mission to address the complex physical, behavioral, and social factors that influence health, while contributing to evidence-based practice across healthcare disciplines.during 2025, scu investigators led and contributed to a diverse portfolio of research initiatives, including 19 grant-related projects and 10 active studies, with additional proposals under review. Faculty, staff, and students produced 45 scholarly publications and delivered 47 national and international presentations, reflecting continued growth in research productivity and dissemination. In 2025, all health system research revenue came from federally funded grants.scu's research program includes federally funded and collaborative projects, including the university's first national institutes of health (nih) r01 award and participation in multi-institution nih-funded research collaborations. These efforts expand scu's role in advancing integrative health research and contributing to national and global scientific dialogue.research at scu is increasingly organized around a whole health framework, integrating clinical, educational, and community-based perspectives into study design and outcomes. This approach supports the development of evidence-informed models of care that reflect real-world patient needs and healthcare delivery systems.in addition to faculty-led research, scu actively engages students and trainees in scholarly activity, fostering a culture of inquiry and preparing future healthcare professionals to apply research in clinical practice. Through these efforts, scu continues to build research capacity, expand external partnerships, and contribute to the advancement of whole-person, integrative healthcare.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.6%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 63.4%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Pass
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: 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: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th 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: 1.9%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.96; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.6%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 61.6% of revenue deployed · 63.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $36.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $702K · 23 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $7.4M 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
  • 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 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.