Massachusetts Eye and Ear
Legal name: Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 042103591
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2017
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2017
- Location
- Boston, MA, USA
- Phone
- 617-523-3345
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Community Health Systems
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $299,721,576
- Expenses
- $292,087,720
- Assets
- $523,876,840
- Liabilities
- $493,098,652
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
39 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOHN R FERNANDEZ (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- JOHN R FERNANDEZ (PRESIDENT): $1,372,817 total reported compensation
- D BRADLEY WELLING (DIRECTOR): $1,221,227 total reported compensation
- KEITH D LILLEMOE MD (DIRECTOR (SINCE 7/18)): $1,079,632 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
In conjunction with Harvard Medical School, Mass. Eye and Ear is committed to the education of future health care professionals, as well as the education of the public concerning the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the diseases in its specialties and concerning the rehabilitation of patients handicapped by these diseases. In order to provide the highest quality of contemporary care and even better care in the future, Mass. Eye and Ear conducts laboratory and clinical research in its areas of specialty. Mass. Eye and Ear recognizes its obligation to serve as a source of excellence in patient care, teaching, and research in Massachusetts, the United States, and the world.
What it reported doing in 2017
See schedule o
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 83% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 74
- Transparency & Controls: 73
- Accountability: 85
- Sustainability: 48
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 75.3%; rating input score 75
- Program expense ratio: 76.1%; rating input score 76
- Fundraising efficiency: $17.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Pass
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Fail
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 73.7%; rating input score 74; 24th 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: 2.5%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.79; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.94; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.3%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site
- Where the money goes: 75.3% of revenue deployed · 76.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 19 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $222.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.4M · 39 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.8M reported
- Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
- Schedules: 12 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2009 to 2017
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 46 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 44 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: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.