University of Calgary

Legal name: The Governors of the University of Calgary

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237067592
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Phone
4032202037
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,360,070,046
Expenses
$1,308,709,150
Assets
$4,133,953,751
Liabilities
$1,107,564,454

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Henry I (President - Incumbent)

Highest reported compensation

  • Henry I (President - Incumbent): $602,355 total reported compensation
  • Henry II (Provost and VP Academic Incumbent): $362,179 total reported compensation
  • John I (Vice-Provost): $349,473 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 University of Calgary's mandate is to be a research-intensive university that provides a transformative educational experience, advances knowledge, and contributes to the well-being of society.

What it reported doing in 2025

General Operations: The University provides education so that society's individuals may advance themselves by graduating with degrees from various faculties and programs. Revenue from general operations includes the provincial government operating grant, tuition fee revenue, investment income available for general spending, and any new revenue generated by faculties and administrative units.

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 filed governance safeguards are in place. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 52
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.6%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 94.5%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $64.79 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 28th 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 52.5%; rating input score 52; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 56%; rating input score 56; 8th 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: 3.8%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.16; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.5%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 91.6% of revenue deployed · 94.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 25 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.2B in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $602K · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $65.3M reported
  • Consistency: 47 of 48 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 21 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.

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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 56/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 52/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.