Scripps College

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
951664123
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Claremont, CA, USA
Phone
909-621-8000
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$161,374,782
Expenses
$130,804,054
Assets
$818,792,703
Liabilities
$135,696,350

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

Leadership & pay

43 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Amy Marcus-Newhall (President)
  • Suzanne Keen (Former President/Faculty)

Highest reported compensation

  • Amy Marcus-Newhall (President): $626,909 total reported compensation
  • Dean Calvo (VP - Business Affairs/Treasurer): $455,995 total reported compensation
  • Binti Harvey - VP - External (Relations & Inst Advancement): $392,383 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Scripps College educates women to develop their intellects and talents through active engagement with a rigorous curriculum, to become independent, resourceful, and responsible leaders, and to make a positive impact on their communities and the world.

What it reported doing in 2024

Scripps College ("Scripps") is an independent, liberal arts college for women with a distinctive interdisciplinary core curriculum offering instruction in the humanities, fine arts, and the natural and social sciences. Scripps has an enrollment of approximately 1,100 students. Founded in 1926, the campus is on the National Register of Historic Places. Its mission is to educate women to develop their intellect and talents through active participation in a community of scholars, so that as graduates they may contribute to society through public and private lives of leadership, service, integrity and creativity.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 71% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 75% for direct work, 25% for grants, and 0% for affiliated organizations.
  • 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: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.6%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 86%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • 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: 96.6%; 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: 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: 18.9%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.26; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.6%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 84.6% of revenue deployed · 86% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 28 of 29 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $112.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $627K · 43 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $24.1M reported
  • Consistency: 43 of 43 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: 14 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

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 19/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.