University of the Cumberlands
Legal name: University of the Cumberlands Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 610470593
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Williamsburg, KY, United States
- Phone
- 800-343-1609 (as shown in footer phone link)
- Rating
- 87
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- University or Technological Institute
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $229,487,179
- Expenses
- $179,649,717
- Assets
- $729,526,178
- Liabilities
- $39,042,364
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
28 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DR LARRY COCKRUM (PRESIDENT/CHIEF EXECUTIVE)
Highest reported compensation
- DR LARRY COCKRUM (PRESIDENT/CHIEF EXECUTIVE): $1,974,823 total reported compensation
- DR JERRY JACKSON (CHANCELLOR): $293,550 total reported compensation
- DR QUENTIN YOUNG (EXECUTIVE VP FINANCE/CFO): $285,921 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Quality first. All of our degree programs surpass the accepted standards established by experts in the field. Our mission is to provide a quality, affordable education to students from all backgrounds through broad-based academics. The institution is grounded in Christian principles and leadership through service. University Vision Our vision is to be a university of distinction that encourages professional and intellectual growth in a student-focused community. University Mission Our mission is to provide a quality, affordable education to students from all backgrounds through broad-based academics. University Vision.
What it reported doing in 2024
The university provides exceptional educational services in a private baptist university environment to students at less than the aggregate cost of these services. Such activity is the primary purpose for which the university was formed. Athletics, sales, and auxiliary income is also an essential component of the university's primary exempt purpose of providing quality educational service.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 92% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 90% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 72
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 83
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 71.2%; rating input score 71
- Program expense ratio: 93.8%; rating input score 94
- Fundraising efficiency: $2.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th 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: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 40th 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: 21.7%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.06; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.8%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 71.2% of revenue deployed · 93.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 22 of 24 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $168.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $2M · 28 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $13.2M reported
- Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
- Schedules: 10 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: 6 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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.
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 10/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.