Matthew 25 AIDS Services

Legal name: Matthew 25 AIDS Services Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611351672
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Evansville, IN, US
Phone
(270) 688-8800
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health Support Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$28,456,363
Expenses
$25,920,570
Assets
$9,584,032
Liabilities
$4,532,145

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • COURTNEY WOOLFORK (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • COURTNEY WOOLFORK (CEO): $152,302 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 compassionate, quality health care and support services to people affected by HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, and other chronic conditions, regardless of their ability to pay.

What it reported doing in 2024

Support services are provided with the objective to assist patients in navigating complex entitlement benefits, connecting to other helping agencies in the community, provide assistance with drug indigent programs, providing housing subsidy, transportation, and housing. Support services are in place for support groups to those infected and those affected. In addition, referrals for drug and alcohol abuse are addressed and spiritual support as requested by the individual clients and families. 975 HIV infected persons received case management services in the green river, lincoln trail, and barren river add districts in Kentucky.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 82% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.8%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 87.8%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $331.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.9%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.47; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.6%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.5% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19.2% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 4 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 79.8% of revenue deployed · 87.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $22.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $152K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.