Mid-South Transplant Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
620992075
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Cordova, TN, USA
Phone
9013284438
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Organ and Tissue Banks

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$20,692,124
Expenses
$20,052,383
Assets
$16,123,176
Liabilities
$6,669,366

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KIM VAN FRANK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KIM VAN FRANK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $409,008 total reported compensation
  • WANDA PEPERONE (DIRECTOR, CLINICAL OPS ORGAN): $216,826 total reported compensation
  • BRETT D LOEHMAN (MANAGER, HLA LAB): $191,904 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of mid-south transplant foundation (mstf) is to improve the quality of lives through excellence in the process of organ and tissue donation and transplantation.

What it reported doing in 2025

As a federally designated organ procurement organization, mstf recovered human kidneys, livers, pancreas, hearts, bone, skin, lungs, and small bowels. The organs were transplanted and the tissues were sent to processors to be used for surgery. These human organs and tissues saved and improved the lives of many people. This is what mid-south accomplished in 2025 in fulfilling its mission.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 90% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 87
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.6%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 74.9%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: 3.1%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.8; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.6% of revenue deployed · 74.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $15M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $409K · 15 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.9M reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.