Mzc Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474543204
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
7702628948
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Energy Resources Conservation and Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,703,334
Expenses
$4,239,287
Assets
$2,197,565
Liabilities
$892,864

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HARRIET ANDERSON LANGFORD (PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN PICARD (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ALLIE KELLY BEATON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ALLIE KELLY BEATON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $180,813 total reported compensation
  • LAURA ROGERS (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $165,004 total reported compensation
  • BEVERLY WEST (DIRECTOR REGIONAL PROGRAMS): $149,713 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 ray reimagines infrastructure to be safer, cleaner, and more productive. Driving innovation in energy, mobility, and technologies, we are the only nonprofit in the us using geospatial analysis for right-of-way utilization, research-based practices, and cutting-edge safety systems to improve transportation.

What it reported doing in 2024

Geospatial planning and mapping for transportation row energy - the ray develops advanced geospatial analysis and mapping tools to help transportation agencies, energy developers, and utilities identify, plan, and deploy energy infrastructure within the highway right-of-way (row). Using gis technology and data from private and public partners, the ray's mapping tools model land suitability, environmental considerations, and output potential for solar and transmission projects. These tools help agencies accelerate energy deployment, improve coordination across transportation and energy sectors, and optimize use of existing public land for sustainable infrastructure.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 65
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.5%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 84.9%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.1%; rating input score 99; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 40%; rating input score 40; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.9%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.52; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.6%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 36.7% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 37.2% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 50.5% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.5% of revenue deployed · 84.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 5 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $181K · 12 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.3M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 17 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.