Massachusetts Medical Society and Alliance Charitable Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
223199624
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Waltham, MA, USA
Phone
7814347044
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,617,895
Expenses
$399,466
Assets
$4,452,653
Liabilities
$153,009

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LOIS DEHLS CORNELL (MMS EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LOIS DEHLS CORNELL (MMS EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT): $753,972 total reported compensation
  • LEE PERRIN MD (DIRECTOR): $14,583 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 support the charitable and educational activities of the mms and the mms alliance, including, but not limited to, developing and nurturing cooperation between individuals, professions, institutions, and the community. (cont'd on sched o) (cont'd) to creatively address issues that affect the health, benefit, and welfare of the community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Fiscal sponsorshipsthe foundation acts as fiscal sponsor for the Massachusetts medical society (mms) under pre-approved grant relationships. Mms is the foundation's 501(c)(6) supported organization (see schedule a). Under these agreements, the foundation receives and administers restricted grant funds from grantors for charitable and educational projects. The organization monitors project budgets, ensures grant compliance, and disburses funds to the supported organization for eligible expenses.in fy25, 2 fiscal sponsorship grants were received. The grants are intended to create, curate, and/or enhance nejm online for the purpose of preventing disease and improving public health. Fiscal sponsorship revenues in the current year reflect grant funds received for multi-year projects. Because many of the related sponsored activities and reimbursements will occur in subsequent years, current-year expenses are lower than revenues.

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 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30.8%; rating input score 31
  • Program expense ratio: 92.2%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 30.1%; rating input score 30; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 75.3%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.15; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30.8% of revenue deployed · 92.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $368K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $754K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 12 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 31/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.