Macon Volunteer Clinic Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
743055376
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Macon, GA, USA
Phone
4787551110
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Health Treatment Facilities, Primarily Outpatient

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,548,369
Expenses
$1,736,606
Assets
$3,593,212
Liabilities
$28,108

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John McCard (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • John McCard (Executive Director): $75,960 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Macon Volunteer Clinic (MVC)provides free primary medical and dental care, as well as medication assistance, to uninsured, working adult residents of Middle Georgia. All patients live at or below 200% of federal poverty level.

What it reported doing in 2024

Macon Volunteer Clinic (MVC) provides free primary medical and dental care, as well as medication assistance, to uninsured adult residents of Middle Georgia. All patients live at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. The clinic is staffed by a diverse group of volunteers. These include active and retired physicians, dentists, nurses, and other medical personnel, as well as administrative volunteers. The clinic is funded by private donations from individuals, corporations, foundations, and civic groups. In 2024, MVC succeeded in serving 321 patients and providing 8,283 patient encounters. MVC provided $811,046 in prescription medication assistance to our patients. All services and medications were provided to patients free of charge. Services include, but are not limited to, primary medical care, dental exams, x-rays, cleanings, fillings and extractions; eye exams and prescription eye glasses; dermatological care; gynecological care; breast health services (screening mammograms, diagnostic mammograms, ultrasounds, biopsies, etc.); laboratory services; diagnostic services; radiology services; cancer screenings; nutrition counseling; mental health counseling; specialty consults; and outpatient surgery.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 41% for direct work, and 59% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 96
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.1%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 79.2%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $32.48 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.9%; rating input score 99; 36th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: 51.1%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.07; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.4%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.4% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.1% of revenue deployed · 79.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $76K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 39/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.