Frank Lloyd Wright's Martin House Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
161426693
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Buffalo, NY, USA
Phone
7168563858
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,511,772
Expenses
$3,381,982
Assets
$48,826,954
Liabilities
$545,126

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JESSIE FISHER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • DANIEL J ZIMMER (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • DOUGLAS C BEAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KEVIN J CAVALIERI (PRESIDENT)
  • PATRICK J KALER (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JESSIE FISHER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $176,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Frank lloyd wright's darwin martin house complex preserves, interprets and promotes a world class masterpiece built for wright's significant patron and friend. It is located in buffalo, ny - a city of recognized architectural treasures.

What it reported doing in 2025

To restore and maintain the frank lloyd wright martin house, offer programs including a wide variety of tours and educational opportunities for the general public, and a retail business related to architecture and design.

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 100% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.6%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 56.7%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 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: -34.6%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.44; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.2%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.6% of revenue deployed · 56.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $176K · 25 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • 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.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.