The Matthew Dennison Charitable Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 881683295
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- West Warwick, RI, USA
- Phone
- 4014864012
- Rating
- 37
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $15,534
- Expenses
- $11,200
- Assets
- $140,765
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARK DENNISON (PRESIDENT)
- JUSTIN LAKE (VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- BRENDA DENNISON (DIRECTOR)
- MICHAEL PAPPAGALLO (DIRECTOR)
- KRISTINE BOUTHILLIER (DIRECTOR)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The matthew dennison charitable foundation honors matthew's legacy by providing scholarships, supporting the hockey community, and aiding those affected by dui-related tragedies.
What it reported doing in 2025
The matthew dennison charitable foundation carries out three core activities: (1) providing college scholarships, (2) offering hockey based assistance to individuals and organizations in need, and (3) providing support to victims of senseless dui related tragedies. These activities are conducted by the foundation and take place in the community it serves, reflecting the guiding characteristics matthew exemplified: strength, leadership, competitiveness, and devotion (md16). Formed less than two months after matthew passed away, the foundation's activities further its exempt purposes by honoring his legacy through direct educational support assistance within the hockey community, and compassionate aid to those impacted by dui related harm.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- 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
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 79
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 27.9%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.57; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.