Community Foundation of Middlesex County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
061477711
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Middletown, CT, USA
Phone
8603470025
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,679,373
Expenses
$3,277,781
Assets
$46,249,815
Liabilities
$2,059,202

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CYNTHIA CLEGG (PRESIDENT &)

Highest reported compensation

  • CYNTHIA CLEGG (PRESIDENT &): $183,907 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To assist and promote the well being of the inhabitants of middlesex county and its vicinity by, among other activities, engaging in charitable activities and extending financial aid through grants, contributions, or other aid or assistance. Our background and work: the community foundation idea is simple one: anyone can be a philanthropist; anyone may use it to give back to the community. The community foundation of middlesex county represents local people, giving locally to make an impact on the lives of others - not just for today, but forever. The community foundation of middlesex county is unique. It began as a grass roots effort with multiple donations from countless caring donors. That tradition continues today as friends, neighbors, businesses, and organizations continue to work together, pooling their gifts, to make a positive impact in our community through the community foundation. Since 1997, generous individuals, companies, institutions, organizations, and businesses have

What it reported doing in 2025

To assist and promote the well being of the inhabitants of middlesex county and its vicinity by among other activities, engaging in charitable activities and extending financial aid through grants, contributions or other aid or assistance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 87% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 98
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.3%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 81.2%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 25th 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: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 58.4%; rating input score 58; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.8%; rating input score 96; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.11; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.6%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.3% of revenue deployed · 81.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 24 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $184K · 24 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls 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: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 44 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 40 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 58/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.