Marillac Community Health Centers

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273046997
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2010
Location
New Orleans, LA, USA
Phone
5044822080
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Ambulatory Health Center, Community Clinic

Reported finances

Revenue
$63,574,669
Expenses
$61,782,101
Assets
$23,985,542
Liabilities
$7,477,778

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL G GRIFFIN (PRESIDENT/CEO/EX-OFFICIO)
  • FRANK FOLINO (VICE PRESIDENT/COO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL G GRIFFIN (PRESIDENT/CEO/EX-OFFICIO): $434,944 total reported compensation
  • DR ROBERT POST (CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER): $292,550 total reported compensation
  • DR ALEENA SHAHIRYAR (CHIEF DENTAL OFFICER): $268,846 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To further the tradition of healing and service to the sick and poor established by st. Vincent de paul, st. Louise de marillac, and st. Elizabeth ann seton.

What it reported doing in 2024

Marillac community health centers (mchc) provides health care and behavioral health services, counseling, and educational assistance to men, women, and children in the new orleans area and Arkansas. Mchc generated 119,546 visits for health care services, 27,234 visits for behavioral health services, and 14,347 visits for dental services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 75% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.4%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 81.7%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $53.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 25.5%; rating input score 26; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 41st 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: 2.8%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.39; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.8% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.4% of revenue deployed · 81.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $50.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $435K · 24 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.2M reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.