The Melmark Charitable Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 232446806
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2016
- Forms available
- Form 990 2016
- Location
- Berwyn, PA, USA
- Phone
- 6103531726
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Named Trusts N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,460,462
- Expenses
- $4,948,852
- Assets
- $16,144,759
- Liabilities
- $6,837,689
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- DR JOANNE GILLIS-DONOVAN PH D (FORMER BOARD SECRETARY): $742,211 total reported compensation
- RITA M GARDNER MPH LABA BCBA (BOARD CHAIR (EFFECT. 6/13/17)): $648,226 total reported compensation
- JOSEPH M ZAKRZEWSKI (BOARD TREASURER): $382,948 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The foundation is a publicly supported organization whose mission is to carry out the purposes of melmark, inc., and other affiliated exempt and publicly supported organizations which are devoted to meeting the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities and/or mental health disorders.
What it reported doing in 2016
The foundation is a publicly supported organization whose missionis to carry out the purposes of melmark, inc., and other affiliated exempt and publicly supported organizations which are devoted to meeting the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities and/or mental health disorders.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 72
- Transparency & Controls: 69
- Accountability: 89
- Sustainability: 67
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 75.1%; rating input score 75
- Program expense ratio: 82.3%; rating input score 82
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 9.4%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.26; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.42; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 55.3% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 75.1% of revenue deployed · 82.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $742K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2016
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 5 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.