Monroe County Library System

Legal name: Penfield Public Library

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
160818751
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2015
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Rochester, NY, United States
Phone
585-428-8180
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,827,624
Expenses
$1,749,887
Assets
$307,554
Liabilities
$52,773

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY MCVICAR KEIM (President)
  • DOROTHEA SANCHEZ (Vice-President)

Highest reported compensation

  • BERNADETTE BRINKMAN (Library Director): $81,268 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Monroe County Library System (MCLS) ensures its members can thrive and make the best use of tax dollars by providing centralized technologies, shared resources, and promotion of best practices. Services provided under the MCLS include a comprehensive telecommunications network, library asset management system (catalog), shipping and delivery services, outreach services, interlibrary loan services, administrative and technical support to member libraries, and the coordinated purchases of electronic resources. Our Mission: The MCLS ensures its members can thrive and make the best use of tax dollars by providing centralized technologies, shared resources, and promotion of best practices.

What it reported doing in 2015

Public library services, making available books, periodicals videos, microfilms, recordings, either on premises or to lend out, predominantly without charge.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 96% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 90.9%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.3%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 87% of revenue deployed · 90.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $81K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2011 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.