Madison Visionary Partners Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461676220
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Madison, AL, USA
Phone
2563844358
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Philanthropy, Voluntarism, and Grantmaking Foundations N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$916,558
Expenses
$141,640
Assets
$1,062,189
Liabilities
$1,697

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRISTINA HEARNE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MELANIE THORNTON (FORMER EXEC DIRECTOR): $38,430 total reported compensation
  • CHRISTINA HEARNE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $9,167 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 purpose of the corporation is connecting people who care with causes that matter to develop and implement plans to enrich the quality of life of people living and working in the city of madison.

What it reported doing in 2024

Miracle league field - this community-led, grassroots fundraising effort seeks to bring a miracle league field to palmer park. This is a fiscally-sponsored project for madison visionary partners. On january 26, 2023, they signed an agreement with madison visionary partners to become the fiscal sponsor of this transformative project within the city of madison that will remove barriers keeping children with mental and physical disabilities off the baseball field.the eventual project build-out once funding has been secured will be led by the madison, Alabama parks and recreation department. The field and park complex will be located within palmer park. Total restricted net assets of this program is 52,793 at the end of 2024.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 16
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 7.3%; rating input score 7
  • Program expense ratio: 35.1%; rating input score 35
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 84.5%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.5; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33.6%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 38.8% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 43% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 7.3% of revenue deployed · 35.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $50K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $38K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 35/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.