Westmont College
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 951684793
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Santa Barbara, CA, USA
- Phone
- 805-565-6000
- Rating
- 85
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Undergraduate College (4-year)
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $113,202,620
- Expenses
- $115,451,839
- Assets
- $319,893,393
- Liabilities
- $72,250,119
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
35 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Gayle Beebe (President)
- Douglas Jones (Vice President for Finance)
- Reed Sheard (Vice President for Advancement and CIO)
- Irene Neller (Vice President for Enrollment, Marketing, and Communications)
- Alex Nizet (Assistant Vice President of Major Gifts)
- Stu Cleek (Vice President for Student Life)
Highest reported compensation
- Gayle Beebe (President): $439,223 total reported compensation
- Kimberly Battle-Waters Denu (Provost): $321,306 total reported compensation
- Douglas Jones (Vice President for Finance): $303,758 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Serving God's kingdom by cultivating thoughtful scholars, grateful servants and faithful leaders for global engagement with the academy, church and world.
What it reported doing in 2024
Instruction. This program service encompassed a wide range of instruction in liberal arts curriculum
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 85% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 86
- Transparency & Controls: 78
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 44
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 94.7%; rating input score 95
- Program expense ratio: 88.7%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.32 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd 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; 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: -2%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.77; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.4%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 94.7% of revenue deployed · 88.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $102.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $439K · 35 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2M reported
- Consistency: 45 of 46 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.