Middlesex College Foundation

Legal name: Middlesex College Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
226079662
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Edison, NJ, USA
Phone
7329062564
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
University or Technological Institute

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,012,583
Expenses
$1,239,436
Assets
$28,017,661
Liabilities
$807,751

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LISA KELLY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LISA KELLY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $122,859 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Since 1966, the Middlesex College Foundation has been the compassionate heart of Middlesex College—committed to opening doors, uplifting lives, and fueling the dreams of students throughout Middlesex County by providing scholarships and addressing essential resources like food and technology so they can thrive in and out of the classroom.

What it reported doing in 2024

Scholarships - since 1967, the middlesex college foundation has distributed over $21.9 million in scholarships, financial aid, and grants to more than 20,000 deserving students. The middlesex college foundation currently offers 156 endowed and annual scholarships for qualified students. The number of deserving middlesex college students in need of financial assistance always exceeds available funding. The middlesex college foundation is committed to increasing our financial resources so that we may assist more students each year. Spending of funds are based on donor restriction and may be temporarily or permanently restricted.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 99% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 38.3%; rating input score 38
  • Program expense ratio: 81.8%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 79.4%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 22.61; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.9%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 38.3% of revenue deployed · 81.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $123K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $138K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.