Millwood Institute Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472801143
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2017
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Richmond, VA, USA
Phone
8043640145
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,371
Expenses
$7,828
Assets
$338
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRYDON M DEWITT (PRESIDENT)
  • LOUIS M MARKWITH (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • BRYDON M DEWITT (PRESIDENT)
  • LOUIS M MARKWITH (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KATHLEEN BURKE BARRETT (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Millwood institute is an educational and training program for ceo's and board chairs of nonprofit organizations.

What it reported doing in 2017

Millwood institute held it's first conference on oct. 4-6, 2015. Three organizations participated with the ceo and chair of the board from each in attendance. The program was designed to provide nonprofit leadership education and to make available opportunities for the organizations' leadership to learn from other participants and to come to know each other better. The facilities and program were conducive to accomplishing these goals. Participants have expressed great appreciation for the unique character and quality of the experience, providing real help in leading and strenghthening their nonprofits.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 91% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6.2%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.04; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.7% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2015 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.