Marygrove Conservancy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822782819
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Detroit, MI, USA
Phone
3139271200
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$20,989,480
Expenses
$9,447,909
Assets
$134,303,795
Liabilities
$109,041,595

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TOM LEWAND (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • TOM LEWAND (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $469,229 total reported compensation
  • ROBERTA WALKER (DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS & STRATEGY): $167,071 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 receive and administer funds and property and to operate exclusively for charitable, educational, scientific, and literary purposes, as well as to preserve the legacy of marygrove college through the advancement of educational opportunities for children and families, particularly within the livernois and mcnichols corridors of detroit, Michigan, by providing space, infrastructure, and other assistance to support integrated p-20 education models that provide comprehensive support from pre-natal through college to career and other community-based activities and programming.

What it reported doing in 2024

Operation of property, including the liberal arts building, the madame cadillac building, the florent gillet hall building, the power house building, the student center building, and the hartman hall building, held as part of the marygrove college legacy

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 40.9%; rating input score 41
  • Program expense ratio: 89.7%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $48.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 55%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.22; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.81; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.7%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 29.6% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 26.1% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 31.7% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 40.9% of revenue deployed · 89.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $469K · 11 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $22.6M reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.