Mafraq Sanatorium Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
591761378
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Boone, NC, USA
Phone
8658886721
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
International Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,513,610
Expenses
$1,587,350
Assets
$100,925
Liabilities
$1,847

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Donna Pierce (Vice President)
  • Scott Hughett (President / Board Chair)

Highest reported compensation

  • Phyllis Payne (Board Member (Part Year)): $325,219 total reported compensation
  • Donna Pierce (Vice President): $292,264 total reported compensation
  • Scott Hughett (President / Board Chair): $241,995 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Mafraq Sanatorium Association provides contributions and services to Annoor Sanatorium for Chest Diseases located in Mafraq, Jordan which provides medical services to the local people groups to treat chest diseases.

What it reported doing in 2024

The primary purpose of this program is to support the work of Annoor Sanatorium for Chest Diseases (ASCD) in Mafraq, Jordan through provision of logistical and financial resources. ASCD is a registered foreign NGO in Jordan whose mission is to provide humanitarian medical relief through the treatment of tuberculosis and other chronic chest conditions. In 2024, ASCD treated patients in their daily outpatient clinic and through inpatient admissions. ASCD is committed to the long-term treatment of patients from Jordan and the surrounding countries in the Middle East.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 86% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 86% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 98
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 62
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 96.3%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: $868.35 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • 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: 50%; rating input score 50; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.9%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.8%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $325K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.