Martin Memorial Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
592343938
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Stuart, FL, USA
Phone
7722875200
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,572,630
Expenses
$8,043,464
Assets
$55,922,328
Liabilities
$3,383,191

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

36 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Martin Memorial Foundation generates financial support for patient care, education and clinical research for Martin Memorial Health Systems to support its mission: "To provide exceptional health care, hope and compassion to every person, every time".

What it reported doing in 2017

Martin memorial foundation provided support to martin memorial medical center a not-for-profit hospital because of its continuing mission of providing outstanding patient care to martin and southern st. Lucie counties. The foundation's chrysanthemum ball has become an annual event in martin county involving many community members and businesses. The purpose of the ball is to raise funds for martin memorial medical center. The foundation also has the goombay bash event annually. The goombay bash raises funds to support the maternal child services department at martin memorial medical center. The goombay event has made it possible for the foundation to fund various initiatives at the material child services department, including the purchase of pediatric rehab equipment, bassinets, books, and made it possible for nursing staff to make follow up visits to the homes of new born babies and their mothers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.8%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 67.6%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.6%; rating input score 91; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30.5%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.95; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.4%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.8% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.8% of revenue deployed · 67.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 29 of 32 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $5.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.3M · 36 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 40 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2010 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 15 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: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.