Experience Matters Consortium Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453788542
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2021
Forms available
Form 990 2021, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
6028123939
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Social Science N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$319,891
Expenses
$510,028
Assets
$210,653
Liabilities
$83,828

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Melinda Gulick (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Melinda Gulick (Executive Director): $96,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Experience Matters connects the skills and talent of individuals, age 50 plus, with social benefit organizations to enhance their capacity to solve community problems. The Organizations vision is that all people age 50 plus and social benefit organizations are working jointly to deliver positive community outcomes.

What it reported doing in 2021

The Encore Fellowship Program allows highly skilled professionals to work for six to twelve months with member nonprofit organizations on a high impact assignment. The Service by Design program brings together member nonprofit organizations in need of expertise with professionals who want to apply their talents and skills in a one time or short term assignment. As a result of Covid 19, nonprofit organizations experienced financial hardship and loss of vital capacity to maintain programs and organizational stability. Experience Matters skilled talent has provided three month to twelve month fellowship assistance to fourteen non profit organizations to support their sustainability and program needs. In addition, Experience Matters deployed 30 volunteer Reading Tutors to provide online tutoring for students in 2nd and 3rd grade to improve literacy.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.
  • 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 67.6%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.89 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 73.2%; rating input score 73; 47th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -59.4%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.41; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.4; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.8%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -15.1% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9.9% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 67.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $345K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $96K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 31 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2012 to 2021
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Fund balance restriction sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.