Mount Allison University
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 980033473
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Sackville, NB, Canada
- Phone
- (506) 364-2269
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $68,850,017
- Expenses
- $66,598,539
- Assets
- $342,054,155
- Liabilities
- $107,815,950
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Sutherland Ian (President and Vice-Chancellor)
- MacKinnon Robert (President and Vice-Chancellor)
Highest reported compensation
- Sutherland Ian (President and Vice-Chancellor): $196,083 total reported compensation
- Inglis Robert (VP of Finance and Admin): $151,280 total reported compensation
- Pringle-Carver (VP, University Advancement): $140,242 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Mount Allison University is a primarily undergraduate liberal arts and sciences university located in Sackville, New Brunswick, Canada. It offers a range of programs in arts, sciences, commerce, music, and fine arts, with a strong emphasis on experiential learning and student involvement through over 110 student-run clubs and societies. The university is governed by a Board of Regents and Senate, with student representation on both bodies.
What it reported doing in 2024
Commissions, Rebates, book sales, retail sales, sales of goods/surplus of furniture and equipment, event tickets, conference revenue, IT support/consultation.
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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 84
- Transparency & Controls: 51
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 60
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 89.4%; rating input score 89
- Program expense ratio: 88%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $12.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- 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: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Fail
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 69.6%; rating input score 70; 14th 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: 3.3%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.14; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.3%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 89.4% of revenue deployed · 88% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 28 of 28 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $58.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $196K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $11.6M reported
- Consistency: 38 of 40 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 13 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.