Meritus College Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943257076
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
San Rafael, CA, USA
Phone
4154008650
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,444,875
Expenses
$1,970,875
Assets
$3,802,828
Liabilities
$2,772

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Diana Wolf (Executive Dir): $156,887 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Meritus believes that higher education is a critical step in addressing income disparity for students of color, first generation students and those from low income backgrounds. Socio-economic circumstance should not limit them from fully engaging in this transformative opportunity. To this end, Meritus empowers San Francisco youth from low income backgrounds to succeed in college and prepare for opportunities post-graduation by providing scholarships, individualized coaching and career mentoring and development.

What it reported doing in 2017

Overall outcomes:86% of Meritus Scholars earn college degrees versus just 23% of comparable low-income students nationally.Total number of students served: 260Total Scholars admitted in 2018: 59 studentsIncoming Scholars in 2018 graduated from 16 public and 2 parochial high schools in San Francisco, 2 public high schools in San Mateo County and 2 public high schools in San Jose.Meritus internship program placed 49 students in summer internships.83% of rising seniors and 71% of rising juniors have had an internship.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 65% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 62.2%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.89 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -36.4%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.93; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87% of revenue deployed · 62.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 2 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $157K · 16 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2014 to 2017
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 14/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.