Mts Sickle Cell Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474594496
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Hampton, GA, USA
Phone
4049254369
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$524,196
Expenses
$246,295
Assets
$409,397
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mapillar Dahn (President/Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Mapillar Dahn (President/Executive Director): $45,834 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 mission of mts sickle cell foundation is to increase the publics a wareness of sickle cell disease by supporting education awareness and research pertaining to sickle cell anemia as well as providing support to families affected by this life threatening disease.

What it reported doing in 2025

Community Health Worker Program/Awareness Program - A research study to build on our understanding of the role community health workers play in the evidence-based management of Sickle Cell Disease as well as spread awareness of sickle cell disease across the state of Georgia, through schools, community centers, churches and in partnership with the Georgia Public Library System.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 50% for direct work, and 50% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.7%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 84.4%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 34.7%; rating input score 35; 31st 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: 53%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.66; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.6%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.4% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 32.7% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 34% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.7% of revenue deployed · 84.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $208K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $46K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 40/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 35/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.