Mary Golden House Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
593787224
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2011
Forms available
Form 990 2011
Location
Deer Park, NY, USA
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Residential Care & Adult Day Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$348,725
Expenses
$403,435
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To create form and establish a charitable organization to benefit homeless persons persons with mental retardation and developmental disabilities individuals with traumatic brain injuries service men and women who are disabled or have family member with special needs

What it reported doing in 2011

The agency as not for profit organization that focuses on the good of individuals that need assistance in their daily living activities and resources achievement mary golden house for the past six years has provided families in crisis or at risk by making unconditional effort to provide them with respite care direct or indirect mary golden house in their effort to avoid rationing of service or denying the non english speaking parents the agency takes this bilingual mostly spanish speaking family as a challenge in offering our unconditional services with choice of staff that speaks spanish and other language in the future

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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: 89
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -15.7%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.3%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -48.9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $308K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $64K · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2010 to 2011
  • 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.

  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.