Mitral Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
800468600
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
6466054002
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,089,981
Expenses
$885,536
Assets
$8,638,357
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID H ADAMS MD 1 (PRESIDENT)
  • DENNIS CHARNEY MD 1 2 (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARK KOSTEGAN FAHP 1 (VICE PRESIDENT FOR DEVELOPMENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID H ADAMS MD 1 (PRESIDENT): $6,050,056 total reported compensation
  • DENNIS CHARNEY MD 1 2 (VICE PRESIDENT): $2,636,248 total reported compensation
  • STEPHEN HARVEY 1 (TREASURER): $2,057,140 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 MITRAL FOUNDATION IS a supporting organization at Mount Sinai Hospital dedicated to advancing mitral valve repair and reconstructive techniques in children and young adults around the world.

What it reported doing in 2024

Mitral foundation is dedicated to advancing the understanding of mitral valve disease and support the mitral valve repair reference center.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 81% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. 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: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 56
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 42.4%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • 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: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 40%; rating input score 40; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 57.6%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.75; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 40.7%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.7% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.2% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 42.4% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $886K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $6.1M · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 37 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 40/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.