Matthew Perry Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
612179747
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Woodland Hills, CA, USA
Phone
8189332600
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Private Grantmaking Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,524,898
Expenses
$1,998,612
Assets
$3,461,811
Liabilities
$254,809

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOUG CHAPIN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LISA KASTELER INC (CHAIRMAN): $207,384 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Drawing inspiration from matthew's life, the foundation is committed to raising awareness and fostering understanding about the nature of addiction and working to dismantle the barriers of stigma that prevent people from seeking and receiving care.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation partners with dr. Andrew herring, highland hospital, and the public health institute in launching a transformative telehealth program to support incarcerated individuals suffering from opioid use disorder (oud). The stark truth is that it is cheaper for the state to let those who are suffering die than to provide them the treatment they vitally need. The pilot program has shown that connecting incarcerated individuals to addiction specialists before release, significantly improves follow-up care and reduces the risk of overdose. We are aiming to expand this program statewide, ensuring continuity of care for those who need it most.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most filed governance safeguards are in place. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30.3%; rating input score 30
  • Program expense ratio: 80.4%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $31.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.1%; rating input score 99; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 57.1%; rating input score 57; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 63.8%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.73; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.4%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30.3% of revenue deployed · 80.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $207K · 3 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $621K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 20 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 19 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 30/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 57/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.