Mateo Lodge Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510140976
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Redwood City, CA, USA
Phone
6505689140
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Residential Mental Health Treatment

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,049,002
Expenses
$4,060,108
Assets
$5,715,103
Liabilities
$2,426,805

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARIA ANDERSON (PRESIDENT)
  • IAN D ADAMSON (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • IAN D ADAMSON (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $188,262 total reported compensation
  • DJ REED (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $186,936 total reported compensation
  • MATTHEW SWEENY (PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $166,259 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 provide community support services for adults suffering from serious mental illness in san mateo county.

What it reported doing in 2024

Rehabilitation services: this includes (1) case management, a community outreach team which tracks all homeless and mentally ill who have used the services at mateo lodge, inc. (2) shelter plus care, a program which provides case managers to oversee homeless individuals who are seeking places of residence, and (3) various administrative support people.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 77% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.4%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 80.9%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $363.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.3%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.41; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.42; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.6%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.4% of revenue deployed · 80.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $188K · 13 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.