Macalester College

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
410693962
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Saint Paul, MN, USA
Phone
651-696-6000
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$328,451,827
Expenses
$226,110,361
Assets
$1,204,649,550
Liabilities
$93,109,010

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

Leadership & pay

43 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUZANNE M RIVERA (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SUZANNE M RIVERA (PRESIDENT): $854,262 total reported compensation
  • GARY MARTIN END 83024 (CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER): $568,567 total reported compensation
  • JOANNA CURTIS (VP FOR ADVANCEMENT): $313,127 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Macalester is committed to being a preeminent liberal arts college with an educational program known for its high standards for scholarship and its special emphasis on internationalism, multiculturalism, and service to society.

What it reported doing in 2024

Residence and dining halls: macalester is a residential campus, located on 53 acres in the center of a major metropolitan area. Two-thirds of students live on campus. Macalester has 10 residence halls and a variety of living learning communities, including 8 language houses, cultural house, the layover: a study away community, perspectives in leadership, eco house, and veggie co-op. The dining hall is located in the campus center to foster a vibrant living-learning community. Locally-sourced organic foods are maximized in dining operations. Food scraps are sent to a local farm. Sustainability is an important priority; in residence halls and dining halls, students are encouraged to reduce energy use.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 79% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 60% for direct work, and 40% 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 reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 93
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.8%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 96.4%; rating input score 96; 51st 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 31.2%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.33; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.2%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 95.8% of revenue deployed · 85.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 27 of 28 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $193.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $854K · 43 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $17.4M reported
  • Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 12 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 20 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.