Mensa Education and Research Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752857248
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Hurst, TX, USA
Phone
8176075577
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Printing, Publishing

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,442,981
Expenses
$995,069
Assets
$6,772,903
Liabilities
$941,822

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TREVOR MITCHELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • NGUYEN PHAM (PRESIDENT)
  • JENNY WISE (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • TREVOR MITCHELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $145,128 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 mensa foundation is unleashing intelligence for the benefit of humanity.

What it reported doing in 2024

Journal and public education - the mensa foundation promotes understanding of human intelligence through publications and public programs. The mensa research journal features leading scholarly work and recent research on intelligence. Our "excellence in" programs, including excellence in reading and excellence in science, support gifted youth and inspire a lifelong love of learning. Foundation colloquiums offer deep exploration of timely topics, sparking dialogue and new ideas, while our bi-monthly speaker series engages audiences on intelligence, giftedness, and neurodiversity. In 2025, we launched the challenge, a pitch-style competition encouraging creative, collaborative solutions to real-world issues.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 71% 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

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 55.5%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.9%; rating input score 99; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 31%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.81; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.2%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49% of revenue deployed · 55.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $553K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $145K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.