Mastery Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222616092
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
8008908540
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Religion Related N.E.C.
Affiliation
Interfaith

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$257,834
Expenses
$213,843
Assets
$253,032
Liabilities
$1,671

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ED STROUPE (President)
  • RABBI ARNOLD MARK BELZER (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANN OVERTON (Exec Dir & VP): $95,210 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The work of the mastery foundation is to empower individuals and communities in their ministries in the reconciliation and healing of divisions and in creating new conversations and possibilities for the future.

What it reported doing in 2025

An annual three-day intensive program for grassroots community and religious leaders in northern ireland designed to provoke new thinking and new conversations that leave participants with more access to their power to make a difference. Offered by invitation and at no cost to those who have demonstrated their commitment to building inclusive communities. During the three days, in a safe, hospitable environment, participants engage each other in a new conversation with questions of how to deal with the identities inherited from history in a way that it is possible to create and authenticate alternative to the future given by the past and how to bring other communities together in a way that supports collectively creating this new kind of future.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 51
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 79%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.1%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.18; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 44.5%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66% of revenue deployed · 79% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $169K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $95K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.