Mcauley Ministries

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943436142
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Phone
4125786223
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,231,459
Expenses
$5,043,504
Assets
$84,861,467
Liabilities
$1,364,302

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANTONIO BELTRAN (DIR, PRESIDENT & CEO THROUGH 5/25)
  • MARISOL VALENTIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANTONIO BELTRAN (DIR, PRESIDENT & CEO THROUGH 5/25): $631,852 total reported compensation
  • JAIME DIRCKSEN (DIRECTOR; INTERIM PRES AS OF 5/25): $379,578 total reported compensation
  • JEREMIAH DODRILL (TREASURER, CFO THROUGH 4/25): $315,004 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We, pittsburgh mercy health system and trinity health, serve together in the spirit of the gospel as a compassionate and transforming healing presence within our communities. Mcauley ministries is a member of pittsburgh mercy health system and trinity health.

What it reported doing in 2024

Mcauley ministries, the grant-making foundation of the pittsburgh mercy health system, was established in 2008 to administer the proceeds from the sale of mercy hospital. Mcauley ministries provides grants to assist under-resourced communities and to promote healthy neighborhoods where residents are supported to reach their full potential.mcauley ministries is named in honor of catherine mcauley, who founded the sisters of mercy in ireland in 1830. Mcauley ministries continues to honor the legacy of the sisters of mercy by focusing grant-making on the pittsburgh neighborhoods traditionally served by the sisters, including the hill district, uptown, and west oakland.please see schedule i and visit our website for additional information: www.mcauleyministries.org

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 96% 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: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 37.4%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 92%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 10th 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 21st 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: 38.7%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 16.83; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.3%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 37.4% of revenue deployed · 92% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $632K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 55 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 362 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 37/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.