Markus Paul Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
863414987
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lake Mary, FL, USA
Phone
4075097882
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$82,559
Expenses
$45,422
Assets
$275,157
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID HOLMES (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JAMES GLAVIN (DIRECTOR)
  • DARYL JOHNSTON (DIRECTOR)
  • DAVID HOLMES (PRESIDENT)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The foundation's purpose is to continue markus paul's legacy of helping, serving and being a light to others by providing additional support to students who are excelling in academics, athletics, and in their communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

The markus paul foundation ("the mp foundation") is a productive resource that improves the lives of hardworking young adults in osceola county, Florida, who may be underrepresented in colleges and universities. The mp foundation has deep roots in the community and is focused on giving back. Some of the support to students include financial assistance, such as scholarships to osceola high school students. During the 2024 tax year, grants were made to two churches that were important in markus' life. Funds were also accumulated to assist students beyond high school by donating resources to syracuse university. These resources will focus on the syracuse university football program, its strength and conditioning program, and students majoring in exercise science.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 75% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 58.8%; rating input score 59; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 45%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.06; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.4% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -45.4% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $45K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 59/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.