Walter B Ford Lecture Fund of the Mathematical Ass

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237275372
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2017
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2023198487
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,821
Expenses
$20,627
Assets
$392,628
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Deanna Haunsperger (President, Mathematical Assoc of America)

People named in this filing

  • Deanna Haunsperger (President, Mathematical Assoc of America)
  • James W Daniel (Treasurer, Mathematical Assoc of America)
  • Elizabeth Mayfield (Chair, Committee on Sections, Mathematical Assoc of America)

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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the trust is to fund a lecture program of the MAA, the trustee organization. For this reason, the officers are not required to perform any oversight of the ongoing administration of the trust except at the highest level as the sole activity of the trust is to generate investment income. The investments are professionally managed and overseen by the investment committee of the trustee organization.

What it reported doing in 2017

To fund the lecture program expenses which brings high-quality mathematical lectures by leading mathematicians to a wider audience.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 97
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.6%; rating input score 91

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -49.2%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 19.03; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $19K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2015 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.