Mannie Jackson Center for the Humanities Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474560760
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Edwardsville, IL, USA
Phone
6186552881
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Humanities Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$384,766
Expenses
$415,416
Assets
$-2,502
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mannie Jackson (Director and President)
  • Sarah Melinger (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Sarah Melinger (Executive Director): $65,193 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To conduct activities that promote mutual understanding and respect among people of different cultures, races, ethnicities, religions and other distinctions; influence positive social change by transforming attitudes and perceptions towards greater acceptance, tolerance and interaction among these groups; and ultimately remove barriers that hinder individuals and groups from realizing their aspirations and full potential.

What it reported doing in 2018

Conversation Toward a Brighter FutureThe "Conversation Toward a Brighter Future" is the Foundation's program that promotes mutual understanding and respect for people of various backgrounds and distinctions. The goal is to educate youth groups of the issues at hand and ultimately shape these discussions and perceptions for future generations. The Foundation has partnered with Lewis and Clark Community College, the Regional Superintendent of Madison County, and Madison County to support a youth driven "Conversation Toward a Brighter Future." The project is to educate individuals around core concepts that the Foundation refers to as the four pillars - Respect, Dignity, Understanding, and Forgiveness. Participants work in school teams to identify, discuss, research issues, and create a plan that yields positive results reflecting the Foundation's four pillars. Plans must have measurable outcomes and offer the ability to be replicated by other schools and communities. They must address the consequences if students, teachers, administrators and staff fail to embrace respect, dignity, understanding and forgiveness, and how the four pillars can result in a better future for our schools, communities, and country. Students may earn their school up to $5,000 to fund their two-year research project.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 96% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 60
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 60.2%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -8%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: -0.01; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.7%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 51.3% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.9% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -83.3% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65% of revenue deployed · 60.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 6 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $250K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $65K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2015 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.