Metropolitan Club Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133871494
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Elmsford, NY, USA
Phone
9143474653
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Film, Video

Reported finances

Revenue
$648,070
Expenses
$304,550
Assets
$3,747,941
Liabilities
$109,025

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

People named in this filing

  • BARRY L CHANDLER (CHAIRMAN)
  • RANDALL J RUDER CCM CCE (VICE-CHAIRMAN)
  • ROBERT KASARA CCM (SECRETARY)

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

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The metropolitan club foundation (the "foundation"), inc. Was formed for the following purposes: to support educational programs for club managers and assistant managers; to further the club management profession; (continued on schedule o).to provide financial assistance to individuals from the public sector, including minorities, interested in the club and hospitality fields and in doing so, create a greater public awareness of professional opportunities; to promote the club management profession through academic programs offered by community colleges, culinary schools and universities both in New York and other states; to cooperate in the dissemination of professional information to allied associations, academic institutions and other groups involved with the hospitality field; to offer limited assistance to club management professionals and their families facing catastrophic and devastating situations due to illness, disaster or death of a family member.

What it reported doing in 2024

Foundation hosts three workshops a year to provide educational programs to further the club management profession. These 6-hour workshops are open to the membership and guests and taught by leading industry experts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 36
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 88
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 22.3%; rating input score 22
  • Program expense ratio: 71.1%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 63.7%; rating input score 64; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 53%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.31; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 22.3% of revenue deployed · 71.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $216K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 22/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.