Talladega College

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
630288870
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Talladega, AL, US
Phone
(256) 362-0206
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$25,599,665
Expenses
$38,868,850
Assets
$99,629,660
Liabilities
$43,466,823

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dr Willie L Todd Jr (College President)
  • Gregory J Vincent (College President, Former)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kenyatta N Shamburger (VP and COO): $174,167 total reported compensation
  • Alicia L Curry (Dean of Social Science and Education): $167,750 total reported compensation
  • Gregory J Vincent (College President, Former): $166,833 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 nurture the whole person through mentoring relations between faculty and students. It provides experiences that develop strong moral and ethical behaviors.

What it reported doing in 2024

Talladega College, Alabama's first private historically black liberal arts college, has been known for academic excellence for over 150 years. Talladega is located in an historic district of the city of Talladega, Alabama. Its main campus includes 44 buildings on 50 acres, surrounded by the city and gently rolling woodlands. The beautiful oak-lined campus boasts several historic landmarks: Swayne Hall (1852), the original school house has been used for classrooms; the President's House (1881); DeForest Chapel (1903), that houses the famous 17 stained-glass windows by David C. Driskell; and Savery Library (1939), the original home of the Amistad Murals. The College has an aggressive tradition of bringing the world to Talladega via workshops, forums and lectures presented by acclaimed artists, scientists, and political, business, and civic leaders.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 62% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.9%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 63.2%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd 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: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • 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: Yes; rating input score 100

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: -51.8%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.56; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 36th 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: 95.9% of revenue deployed · 63.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $24.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $174K · 27 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5M reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 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: 9 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.

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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.