Marc Foundation of Dane County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391660939
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
6082239110
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations

Reported finances

Revenue
$135,619
Expenses
$101,289
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL LAWTON (PRESIDENT)
  • TOMMY FARRELL (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SUZANNE HANSON (EX-OFFICIO/ASST. SECRETARY): $133,149 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Marc foundation of dane county has provided financial support to programs of madison area rehabilitation centers, inc (dba marc, inc.). The primary support has been through building leases and improvements to marc and to support their daily programs for adults with developmental and intellectual disabilities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Marc foundation of dane county provides funding for employee recognition awards at the marc annual recognition event. There are four such awards; one annually and three presented in alternate years. The funding is provided via an annual grant to marc and comes from restricted funds at the marc foundation of dane county. The marc annual banquet also recognizes local businesses who hire marc program participants as well other marc employees with longevity and volunteers. The foundation also, on occasion, acknowledges all marc employee efforts through an annual "thank you" that often includes a financial appreciation and/or community outing event thank you. This is also done through a grant to marc. The marc foundation of dane county also oversees an annual fall fund drive, the proceeds of which are provided to marc via an annual grant to be used to support activities out in the community for clients as well as program needs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 66% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 63% for direct work, and 37% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.7%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 97.8%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.93 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 25.3%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.3%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -28.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66.7% of revenue deployed · 97.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $99K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $133K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.