Moles Charitable Fund
Legal name: Moles Charitable Fund Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 830549296
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2018
- Location
- Montvale, NJ, United States
- Phone
- (201) 930-1923
- Rating
- 57
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Religion Related N.E.C.
- Affiliation
- Religious (unspecified)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $995,988
- Expenses
- $120,276
- Assets
- $4,077,221
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JACK CALLAHAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- DAVID PUZA - THRU 225 (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- DAVID PUZA - THRU 225 (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $194,444 total reported compensation
- JACK CALLAHAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $151,723 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Moles Charitable Fund, Inc. (MCF) was created in 2018 to further The Moles’ long-held mission: encouraging youth—including women, minority and disadvantaged engineering students, and engineering students who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces—to pursue careers and participate in Heavy Construction by establishing a multi-purpose education program in cooperation with engineering colleges and other associations. In 1956, The Moles inaugurated still another event, the Annual Students Day. Originally held in April of each year, it is now typically held in October to encourage more students to apply for internships. The Students Day tours have become so popular, that in 2023, the Education Committee expanded its outreach, hosting three tours in the New England, New York/New Jersey and Washington, D.C. regions, to which six hundred and fifty students and faculty signed up. The Moles...
What it reported doing in 2025
Scholarships: the moles scholarships are made available to academically qualified and deserving students at the participating colleges and universities. Recipients were chosen by the dean of their respective engineering school. There is no requirement of the student to have any relation to any mole member or to any company for whom a mole member works. During the calendar year 2025, scholarships were issued to qualified students and organizations.moles charitable fund, sponsors expenses for 4 student days where college engineering majors are brought to construction sites to observe on site operations. Last year there were close to 800 students that attended the 4 events in boston, New York, philadelphia and Washington dc.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 29
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 74
- Sustainability: 85
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 14.5%; rating input score 14
- Program expense ratio: 65%; rating input score 65
- 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; 78th 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 87.9%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 33.9; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: Limited
Growth
- Program expense growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 25.2% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 14.5% of revenue deployed · 65% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $78K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $194K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 14/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.