The M Charity (Formerly Known as the M Foundation)

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
134191185
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2012
Forms available
Form 990 2012
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2122977000
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Public Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$183,365
Expenses
$248,910
Assets
$278,862
Liabilities
$182,769

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is in support of efforts to help people in need and distress

What it reported doing in 2012

Leslie schwartz pancreatic cancer fund

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 62% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 24
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.1%; rating input score 99; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -35.7%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.12; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.66; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -44.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.4% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 0 of 2 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $231K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2011 to 2012
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.