Mima Foundation of Brevard Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
593690337
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2012
Forms available
Form 990 2012
Location
Melbourne, FL, USA
Phone
3219529132
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$46,510
Expenses
$56,232
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To add to the quality of life in brevard county by supporting health- oriented educational programs and providing assistance grants to patients in need.

What it reported doing in 2012

The scholarship fund is designed to help alleviate and bring attention to the current shortage of nurses & other health care workers, which is expected to grow into a crisis in the next few years. Two scholarship awards in the amount of 2,000 were given to two recipients and 2,000 was placed in the endowment program with the university of central Florida. Over 100,000 in scholarships have been given through bcc programs alone to date. Prior recipients also attended keiser university, university of Florida, gulf coast university and university of central Florida. Patient grants are awarded to patients in financial need. These grants are used to pay for non-medical costs, such as childcare, transportation and mortgage/rent assistance. Twenty-two patient grants in the amount of 500 were awarded to twenty-two recipients. The long-term goals of this program are to find as many resources as possible to ease patients' burdens during severe illness. (i.e. Placing patients into other existing community programs to maximize every organizations' resources and volunteers as well as partnering with local organizations to maximize the benefits to brevard county patients. Mima medical group donates office space and equipment to the foundation to run these programs. The office space is valued at 6,000 per year. In addition, their social workers services are donated to process grant applications and obtain pertinent medical information.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 90% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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: 86
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 51st 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; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -20.9%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 47.7%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -42.9% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $29K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $27K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2011 to 2012
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.