Community Foundation of Greater Memphis
Legal name: Community Foundation of Greater Memphis Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 581723645
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Memphis, TN, USA
- Phone
- (901) 728-4600
- Rating
- 86
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $171,395,190
- Expenses
- $149,115,390
- Assets
- $953,060,353
- Liabilities
- $10,077,503
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
28 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ROBERT M FOCKLER (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- ROBERT M FOCKLER (PRESIDENT & CEO): $429,177 total reported compensation
- BARBARA S MORA (ASST SECRETARY & COO): $220,647 total reported compensation
- VERONICA JAMISON (VP OF PHILANTHROPIC SERVIC): $185,582 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of the Community Foundation of Greater Memphis is to strengthen our community through philanthropy. To accomplish this mission, the Community Foundation will: Develop and effectively manage charitable funds and endowments, offering the highest levels of service and expertise to individuals, families, and institutional donors and their successors; Actively address the needs of the community by examining community issues, securing and distributing resources, advocating for positive change, and convening meetings and conversations which encourage donors and the community to respond;.
What it reported doing in 2024
Donor advised funds: the foundation's primary program is to administer donor advised funds. These funds give donors flexibility to make gifts to their funds and direct grants to the nonprofits of their choice.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- 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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 91
- Transparency & Controls: 84
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 83
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 90%; rating input score 90
- Program expense ratio: 92.6%; rating input score 93
- Fundraising efficiency: $248.54 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 21st 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: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 98.3%; rating input score 98; 35th 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: 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: 13%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.39; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.8%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -2.7% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -6.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 90% of revenue deployed · 92.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $138M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $429K · 28 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1M reported
- Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 767 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 707 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.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.