Shaw University

Legal name: The Shaw University

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
560530235
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Raleigh, NC, US
Phone
(800) 214-6683
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$36,315,893
Expenses
$39,736,752
Assets
$73,318,435
Liabilities
$32,659,240

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

Leadership & pay

33 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AYDIA COBB (PRESIDENT, SGA)
  • DR ADRIAN ALLEN (PRESIDENT, FACULTY SENATE)
  • STANLEY ERIC HOWARD (PRESIDENT, NAT'L ALUMNI ASSOCIATION)
  • DR PAULETTE DILLARD (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR PAULETTE DILLARD (PRESIDENT/CEO): $253,667 total reported compensation
  • LYNETTE WOOD (DEAN - SCHOOL OF BUSINESS): $148,952 total reported compensation
  • DR STACEY SOWELL (VP ENROLLMENT MGMT AND STUDENT SUCCESS): $145,891 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Shaw University is a close-knit HBCU in the heart of Downtown Raleigh, dedicated to empowering students through academic excellence, cultural enrichment, and community engagement.

What it reported doing in 2024

The shaw university is a coeducational institution of liberal arts, offering undergraduate degrees and a masters of divinity degree, masters of religious education and a master of science in curriculum and instruction with a concentration in early childhood education. The university provides student aid to qualified students who express a financial need in order to complete their education. There are approximately 964 full-time and part-time students. The university also offers student housing.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 66% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Expenses are high relative to revenue and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.6%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 61.8%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -9.4%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.85; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.45; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.9%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 69.6% of revenue deployed · 61.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $24.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $254K · 33 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $8.2M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 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: 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.
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.