Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences
Legal name: Mcphs University
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 042104700
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Aug 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Boston, MA, United States
- Phone
- 6177322800
- Rating
- 85
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Graduate, Professional Schools (Separate Entities)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $456,475,330
- Expenses
- $303,181,639
- Assets
- $2,452,106,199
- Liabilities
- $143,991,684
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
29 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- RICHARD J LESSARD (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- RICHARD J LESSARD (PRESIDENT): $1,790,552 total reported compensation
- CAROLINE ZEIND (VPAA - PROVOST): $948,231 total reported compensation
- KEITH A BELLUCCI (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $810,106 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Working to create a healthier, more equitable world since 1823. In spite of the extraordinary challenges that we all face these days, we are entering 2026 with unprecedented opportunities that continue to advance our mission and inspire our Community. The foundation that we have built–centered around our core values of support, inclusion, compassion, respect, and kindness–gives us the confidence to achieve our aspirational goals and reach our potential. We are proud to be a leader in health and life sciences education with a passionate commitment to preparing our graduates for lifelong, rewarding, and impactful careers. Through classroom training and experiential learning, there are more opportunities than ever for students to practice their skills and a.
What it reported doing in 2024
The university provided educational programs to students pursuing undergraduate and graduate degrees in pharmacy and health science disciplines.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 85% 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 75% for direct work, and 25% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 69
- Transparency & Controls: 95
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 85
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 67.4%; rating input score 67
- Program expense ratio: 90.6%; rating input score 91
- Fundraising efficiency: $3.44 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: 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: 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: 33.6%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.09; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site
- Where the money goes: 67.4% of revenue deployed · 90.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $274.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.8M · 29 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.4M reported
- Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.