Batten University

Legal name: Virginia Wesleyan University

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
546039600
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Virginia Beach, Virginia, US
Phone
757.455.3200
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$112,555,367
Expenses
$72,468,564
Assets
$301,036,633
Liabilities
$38,121,052

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

Leadership & pay

49 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR SCOTT D MILLER (PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN GROULX (VICE PRESIDENT FOR FINANCE)
  • SUSAN E LARKIN (PROVOST & VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS)
  • HEATHER CAMPBELL (VICE PRESIDENT FOR ENROLLMENT)
  • KEITH MOORE (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DEIRDRE GONSALVES-JACKSON (PROVOST & VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR SCOTT D MILLER (PRESIDENT): $610,338 total reported compensation
  • JOHN GROULX (VICE PRESIDENT FOR FINANCE): $202,526 total reported compensation
  • SUSAN E LARKIN (PROVOST & VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS): $197,853 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Batten University is a private liberal arts university that prepares students for meaningful lives and careers through a supportive, student-centered learning environment.

What it reported doing in 2024

Educational and general expenses to include instructional services, public services, plant operations and student aid. For approximately 1,241 traditional students and 3,586 continuing education learners enrolled and 156 in graduate programs during fiscal year 2024/25 with 1 student graduating with an associate degree, 262 students graduating with baccalaureate degrees and 32 students graduating with graduate degrees.

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 52% for direct work, and 48% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.2%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 76.8%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $55.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 76; 76th 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: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • 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: 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: 35.6%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.15; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.4%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 50.2% of revenue deployed · 76.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 37 of 37 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $55.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $610K · 49 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $20.8M reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 13 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: 12 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.

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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.