Mather
Legal name: Mather Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 201030638
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Evanston, IL, US
- Phone
- (847) 492.7500
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $66,562,780
- Expenses
- $23,384,787
- Assets
- $807,575,812
- Liabilities
- $110,472,031
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARY G LEARY (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- MARY G LEARY (PRESIDENT & CEO): $2,061,920 total reported compensation
- CHRISTOPHER MANELLA (SVP FINANCE & TREASURER): $569,035 total reported compensation
- MARY SCHOEGGL (CFO): $461,731 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Mather foundation serves as the parent entity for the matherorganizations to hold, invest and preserve funds, which allows theorganizations to provide housing, health care, community programs, research and education and other services (continued in schedule o)that enhance the lives of older adults by creating ways to age well.
What it reported doing in 2024
Mather foundation serves as the parent entity for the matherorganizations to hold, invest and preserve funds, which allows theorganizations to provide housing, health care, community programs, research and education and other services that enhance the lives ofolder adults by creating ways to age well.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Affiliate-supported. 66% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 56
- Transparency & Controls: 64
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 92
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 57.6%; rating input score 58
- Program expense ratio: 70.3%; rating input score 70
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 64.9%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 34.53; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.5%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 4 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 57.6% of revenue deployed · 70.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $16.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $2.1M · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.2M reported
- Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 10 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.