Manterfly Youth Development

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541961916
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2010
Forms available
Form 990 2010, Form 990-N 2008
Location
Richmond, VA, USA
Phone
8043787710
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$183,334
Expenses
$191,258
Assets
$8,003
Liabilities
$3,993

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Manterfly youth development, inc acts as a liason between at-risk youth and opportunities for success.

What it reported doing in 2010

Provided liason services for at-risk youth with mentoring and outreach services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 72.7%; rating input score 73; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 44.3%; rating input score 44; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.3%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.04; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.5; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.9%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $46K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 21 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and related organizations
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 44/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.