Maymont Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
546039788
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Richmond, VA, USA
Phone
8043587166
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies & Historic Preservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,818,655
Expenses
$8,598,572
Assets
$40,341,138
Liabilities
$1,374,437

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

Leadership & pay

35 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • C PARKE RICHESON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • C PARKE RICHESON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $207,199 total reported compensation
  • CHRISTINE WEBB (VP, FINANCE & BUSINESS OPE): $137,894 total reported compensation
  • THOMAS ZYDEL (VP OF ADVANCEMENT & ENGAGE): $119,538 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The maymont foundation is committed to creating experiences that delight, educate and inspire.

What it reported doing in 2024

Education and community programs - maymont offers community and public historic programming through guided and self-guided audio tours of the historic house museum, gardens, and grounds. Garden programs include workshops, classes, garden and arboretum walking tours, children's programs and master gardener training classes. Maymont educators provide science and social studies education to more than 16,000 students through school programming, summer camps, and community programs. Maymont's outdoor engagement and enrichment on the expansive grounds attract more than 80,000 guests annually for art, cultural, and music events including garden glow, herbs galore and more, dominion energy family easter, summer kickoff, and merry market.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.6%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 79.5%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.35 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: 20.5%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.69; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.7%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.6% of revenue deployed · 79.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 32 of 32 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $6.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $207K · 35 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.8M reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.