Mercy Enterprise Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN: 931315010
IRS 990 coverage: 2010–2016
Forms available: Form 990 2016
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Phone: 5038965070
Rating: 77
Verdict: SUPPORTED
Rating confidence: Moderate
Sector: Human Services N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue: $2,187,523
Expenses: $2,396,778
Assets: $3,756,036
Liabilities: $3,569,430

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

John W Haines (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

Jay Price (Treasurer): $162,361 total reported compensation
Barnes Ellis (Secretary): $153,595 total reported compensation
John W Haines (Executive Director): $117,360 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Assist low-income individuals, including minorities, women, and immigrants, in the Oregon-Washington region to increase their economic self-sufficiency through micro-enterprise and self-employment.

What it reported doing in 2016

Training and business development: Providing basic business training courses and extensive one on one business counseling and support. These training classes provide the core competencies needed to start or run a small business focusing on business basics, marketing, technology, credit management and finance. In addition to training refugees in farming operations, the farm program provides hands on experience in distribution and marketing of harvests. An SBA funded program facilitated teams of small businesses; women, minority and service disabled owned businesses to bid on larger federal contracting opportunities than had historically been within their competencies.

Operating model

Revenue model: Grant-funded. 71% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model: Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 66% for direct work, and 34% for 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

Financial Efficiency: 91
Transparency & Controls: 68
Accountability: 77
Sustainability: 28
Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

Mission deployment rate: 95.9%; rating input score 96
Program expense ratio: 87.5%; rating input score 88
Fundraising efficiency: $32.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th 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%; rating input score 99; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

Operating margin: -9.6%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.57; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.95; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Officer compensation ratio: 7.3%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

Program expense growth: -3% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
Asset growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

Where the money goes: 95.9% of revenue deployed · 87.5% of spending went to programs
Governance: 6 of 10 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $2.1M in reported program spending
Leadership: top reported pay $162K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2016
Contacts: How to reach this organization
Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
Related organizations: 2 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.