Miles for Migraine

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010910791
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Jericho, VT, USA
Phone
2158801150
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,699,744
Expenses
$1,602,479
Assets
$1,502,895
Liabilities
$667,337

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHIRLEY KESSEL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • WILLIAM YOUNG (PRESIDENT)
  • KENNETH JONES (SR. VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KATIE MCDONALD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHIRLEY KESSEL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $186,251 total reported compensation
  • KATIE MCDONALD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $138,317 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Improving the lives of migraine patients and their families, raising public awareness about headache disorders, and helping find a cure for migraines.

What it reported doing in 2025

To raise awareness of and aid for individuals who suffer from migraine headache disorders. Funds are raised through walk/runs and then used to provide education to patients and their familes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 88% 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 most voting board members are independent. 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: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.9%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 73.9%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.86 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 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: 59.8%; rating input score 60; 35th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.7%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.94; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.3%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.9% of revenue deployed · 73.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $186K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $484K reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 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.
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • 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 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.