Claremont Graduate University

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
951664100
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Claremont, CA, US
Phone
909-621-8000
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
University or Technological Institute

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$71,616,000
Expenses
$79,761,860
Assets
$355,930,314
Liabilities
$65,601,642

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

Leadership & pay

33 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Leonard Jessup (Former President)
  • Timothy J Kirley (Interim President (thru 02/25))

Highest reported compensation

  • David Sprott (Dean - Drucker School of Management): $472,962 total reported compensation
  • Gregory J DeAngelo (Faculty): $398,003 total reported compensation
  • Michelle Bligh - EVPProvost ((thru 2/25)/Inter. Pres. (as of 2/25)): $370,205 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Claremont Graduate University prepares students for lives of purpose and impact through rigorous academic programs, innovative research, and a commitment to advancing knowledge for the public good.

What it reported doing in 2024

Claremont Graduate University (the "University") is a private, nonprofit, exclusively graduate and professional RU/H research university (high research activity). Its five schools and three independent departments offer Master's degrees in over 40 fields and doctoral degrees in over 20 fields. Founded in 1925, the University offers programs in the arts and humanities, social science, education, management, public health, and botany, the latter in conjunction with the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. It serves a student population of approximately 2,500. The University's mission is to prepare a diverse group of outstanding individuals to assume leadership roles in the worldwide community through research, teaching, and practice in selected fields. In carrying out its mission, the University is increasingly practice based, transdisciplinary, and student-centered.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 84% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.2%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 80.6%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.76 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 31st 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: 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -11.4%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.46; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.7%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 86.2% of revenue deployed · 80.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $64.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $473K · 33 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.9M reported
  • Consistency: 41 of 42 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 11 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
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.