Master & Fellows of Peterhouse
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 986001299
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2010
- Location
- Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK
- Phone
- 1223338204
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $20,028,397
- Expenses
- $20,693,041
- Assets
- $612,503,020
- Liabilities
- $41,362,783
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
42 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- Professor MA Parker (Master): $184,275 total reported compensation
- Mr INM Wright (Senior Bursar): $160,677 total reported compensation
- The Revd Dr SWP Hampton (Senior Tutor): $145,921 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Provision of higher education and accommodation of approximately 450 undergraduate and graduate students in the university of cambridge and associated research
What it reported doing in 2024
Provision of higher education and accommodation of approximately 450 undergraduate and graduate students in the university of cambridge and associated research. The measure of success for research is the award of degrees by the university of cambridge to college students. Most students were able to take examinations this year; 254 (2024: 250) undergraduates sat classed university examinations in 2025; 218 (2024: 203), or 85.8% (2024: 81.2% obtaining grades in the first class or the upper division of the second class (or in the undivided second class); in the other examinations there were 11 passes (2024:14); 43 (graduate students successfully completed an mphil or other one-year graduate course (2024: 41), 4 (2024: 6) completed clinical studies and 30 (2024: 30) satisfied the requirement for the degree of phd.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 86
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 32
- Sustainability: 51
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 95.4%; rating input score 95
- Program expense ratio: 91.5%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.32 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Limited
- Conducts field audits: Limited
- May suspend future funding: Limited
- Requires financial reports: Limited
- Conducts site visits: Limited
- Requires grant agreements: Limited
- May require repayment: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -3.3%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 29.6; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 8.6%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 95.4% of revenue deployed · 91.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 42 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $18.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $184K · 42 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4.1M reported
- Consistency: 42 of 42 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 38 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.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.