Metropolitan Community College Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
470596504
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Omaha, NE, USA
Phone
5316222346
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community or Junior Colleges

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,778,850
Expenses
$5,482,138
Assets
$30,346,051
Liabilities
$3,678,361

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Karen Pesek (President from 1/1/25. Treasurer to 12/31/24)
  • Gerry Tomka (Past President to 1/1/25)
  • Kurt Meisinger (Vice President)
  • Amy Recker To May 2024 (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Karen Pesek (President from 1/1/25. Treasurer to 12/31/24)
  • Gerry Tomka (Past President to 1/1/25)
  • Kurt Meisinger (Vice President)

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 MCC Foundation was established to advance the mission of the College by creating community awareness, building and nurturing meaningful relationships and connecting community partners with giving opportunities that fulfill their philanthropic objectives. The Foundation supports and assists the College in serving students and communities throughout its four-county service area by providing accessible, quality educational programs and services.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provide In-kind donations. The MCC Foundation contributes non-cash gifts it receives to Metropolitan Community College for departmental, program and general use. For example, donations of career education equipment offers students workforce-relevant, hands-on educational opportunities to prepare them for high-demand occupations after graduation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 90
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.2%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 98.9%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th 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: 88.3%; rating input score 88; 19th 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 57.1%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.54; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.9% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.2% of revenue deployed · 98.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $5.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 23 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.