Midland Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 222424471
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- North Branch, NJ, USA
- Phone
- 9087227210
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,435,461
- Expenses
- $1,296,331
- Assets
- $4,363,643
- Liabilities
- $1,418,561
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SHAWN MCINERNEY (President/CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- GREGG SWEETMAN (FINANCIAL DIREC): $287,452 total reported compensation
- SHAWN MCINERNEY (President/CEO): $219,379 total reported compensation
- GAIL RUSSELL (DEV. DIRECTOR): $147,739 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Midland Foundation raises funds to support the programs and services of The Midland Corporation. The Foundation does so by grant writing, soliciting individual and corporate donations, estate and planned gifts, and revenue generated by special events. The Midland Foundation also works with scores of volunteers who wish to support Midland and our mission.The Midland Foundation is also the conduit for all Social Media, Public Relation and Press Releases related to significant events and promoting programs within The Midland Corporation.Midlands mission is to promote self-advocacy, personal achievement and foster independence for children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities by providing a choice and range of innovative programs, services and supports.
What it reported doing in 2024
To help foster the educational and charitable purposes of midland school, inc. And midland adult services, inc.; to affirm financial support for the improvement and growth of the midland programs and, through solicitation of the community, promote the goodwill and welfare of the developmentally disabled.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 87% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 64
- Transparency & Controls: 66
- Accountability: 96
- Sustainability: 56
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 68.6%; rating input score 69
- Program expense ratio: 69.7%; rating input score 70
- Fundraising efficiency: $5.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 3rd 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: 98.8%; rating input score 99; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- 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: 9.7%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.37; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.33; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 18%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 68.6% of revenue deployed · 69.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 16 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $904K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $287K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 5 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 19/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.