Medical Network for Education and Research Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010577001
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2016
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Decatur, GA, USA
Phone
4044062962
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$82,380
Expenses
$80,346
Assets
$2,807
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Loretta Patrick (Executive Director)
  • Sheronde Glover (President)

People named in this filing

  • Loretta Patrick (Executive Director)
  • Dr Phillip E Hadley (Medical Director)
  • Sheronde Glover (President)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To improve medical outcomes, promote preventive healthcare and improve the quality of life for Georgia residents by sponsoring educational projects and conducting social and clinical research and providing medical screenings.

What it reported doing in 2016

Provided support to free clinic, South Dekalb Center for Healthy Living by providing clinic supplies. Over 200 clinic visits. Provide screening and treatment options in a variety of womens health issues including cervical cancer screening and std screening, mammograms, pelvic ultrasounds. Approximately 175 served

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 33
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 33.3%; rating input score 33
  • Program expense ratio: 34.2%; rating input score 34

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.5%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.03; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.3% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 33.3% of revenue deployed · 34.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $27K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.