Saint Martin's University

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
910564993
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Lacey, WA, US
Phone
360-491-4700
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
University or Technological Institute
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$97,477,845
Expenses
$76,854,464
Assets
$137,931,293
Liabilities
$32,360,464

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

Leadership & pay

47 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIAM BROWNSBERGER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • WILLIAM BROWNSBERGER (PRESIDENT): $208,151 total reported compensation
  • CHUNG-SHING LEE (DEAN OF BUSINESS): $202,524 total reported compensation
  • PATRICIA LEMON (DEAN OF ADMISSIONS): $186,450 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Saint Martin's University provides a transformative education rooted in the Catholic Benedictine tradition, fostering academic excellence, community, and service.

What it reported doing in 2024

Higher education: instructional programs and related services for on-campus and extension students leading to undergraduate and graduate degrees. Saint martin's offers degrees in engineering, nursing, business, education, and the liberal arts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 66% 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 52% for direct work, and 48% 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: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.2%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 79.6%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • 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: 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: 96.6%; rating input score 97; 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: 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: 21.2%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.79; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.3%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 62.2% of revenue deployed · 79.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 28 of 29 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $61.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $208K · 47 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.4M reported
  • Consistency: 44 of 44 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 13 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 39/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.