Magnet Qalicb Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
882834792
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Cleveland, OH, USA
Phone
2165431222
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$742,596
Expenses
$1,169,765
Assets
$14,476,218
Liabilities
$15,333,582

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ETHAN KARP (PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ETHAN KARP (PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR): $596,360 total reported compensation
  • EDWARD KNEITEL (TREASURER & DIRECTOR (THROUGH 4/7/25)): $191,868 total reported compensation
  • DANIEL JACOBY (TREASURER & DIRECTOR (AS OF 4/7/25)): $35,810 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Conducting or supporting activities for the purposes of increasing support for manufacturing advocacy and growth network inc. (magnet,) increasing community involvement with and support for magnet, and promoting the facilities of magnet, accepting and expending funds in support of such activities, and doing all things necessary or appropriate in order to accomplish the foregoing purposes.

What it reported doing in 2024

Providing support for manufacturing advocacy and growth network inc. (magnet,) increasing community involvement with and support for magnet, and promoting the facilities of magnet, accepting and expending funds in support of such activities, and doing all things necessary or appropriate in order to accomplish the foregoing purposes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - 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: 15
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 18.9%; rating input score 19
  • Program expense ratio: 12%; rating input score 12
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -57.5%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.38; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.06; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -127.7% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -64.8% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.2% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 18.9% of revenue deployed · 12% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $140K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $596K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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 19/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.