Mercy Care Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581448522
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
6788438600
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,566,037
Expenses
$5,523,576
Assets
$117,940,059
Liabilities
$2,869,512

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KATHRYN LAWLER (DIRECTOR; SJHS PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • KATHRYN LAWLER (DIRECTOR; SJHS PRESIDENT & CEO): $483,707 total reported compensation
  • STEVEN SILER (DIR; CHIEF DEV OFFICER THRU 12/24): $417,041 total reported compensation
  • ERICA STOKES (TREASURER; SJMCS CFO): $296,656 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, saint joseph's health system and trinity health, serve together in the spirit of the gospel as a compassionate and transforming healing presence within our communities. Honoring the heritage and advancing the ministry of the sisters of mercy, saint joseph's health system provides excellent health care to poor and marginalized persons.mercy care foundation is a member of saint joseph's health system and trinity health.

What it reported doing in 2024

Since 1981, mercy care foundation (foundation), located in atlanta, ga, has served as the fund-raising arm of the saint joseph's health system. In recent years, the foundation's support has been directed toward two specific entities within saint joseph's health system: saint joseph's mercy care services (d/b/a mercy care services) and mercy senior care (d/b/a mercy care rome). The foundation raised over $1 million in fiscal year 2025 from individuals, corporations, private foundations and the federal and state government with assistance from dedicated volunteers and generous friends. These contributions help mercy care services and mercy care rome to meet the vast medical, dental and social service needs of the uninsured and underinsured community and to respond to the unmet needs of older persons in the community. Please visit our website for additional information: www.mercyatlanta.org

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.4%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 73.3%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 99.9%; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 25th 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: 47.7%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 21.35; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.7%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.4% of revenue deployed · 73.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $484K · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 311 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 3/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.