The Fraser Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
980032427
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Vancouver, BC, CA
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,481,818
Expenses
$10,479,257
Assets
$12,336,664
Liabilities
$10,994,503

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Veldhuis Niels (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Veldhuis Niels (President): $571,514 total reported compensation
  • Clemens Jason (EVP): $541,410 total reported compensation
  • Brar Manpreet (Director Human Resources): $331,760 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the Fraser Institute is to improve the quality of life for Canadians their families and future generations by studying measuring and broadly communicating the effects of government policies entrepreneurship and choice on their well-being

What it reported doing in 2025

Research and publishing in the following areas; Environment and Natural Resources Economic Freedom Tax and Fiscal Economic Policies Health Policies & Education performance

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.7%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 80.9%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.5 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: 0%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.18; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.89; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.4%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.7% of revenue deployed · 80.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 57 of 57 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $8.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $572K · 7 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $346K reported
  • Consistency: 50 of 51 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 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: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.