Black Economic Council of Massachusetts Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810687250
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Roxbury Crossing, MA, USA
Phone
8573084623
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Black Studies

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,951,279
Expenses
$3,535,173
Assets
$4,014,086
Liabilities
$1,150,856

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NICOLE OBI (PRESIDENT AND CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • NICOLE OBI (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $320,034 total reported compensation
  • KRYSTAL CUMMINGS (CHIEF OF PEOPLE AND CULTURE): $148,417 total reported compensation
  • MACKENSON CHARLES (CHIEF OF MEMBERSHIP PROGRAMS): $138,313 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Becma's mission is to advance the economic well-being of black businesses, organizations, and residents in Massachusetts through advocacy, business and leadership development, and strategic partnerships.

What it reported doing in 2025

Through one of their wholly-owned subsidiaries, bci, the organization makes loans to members of the community they serve. Bci has an investment committee that reviews the applications and due diligence packets of each entity that applies for a loan, and that committee consists of six members with extensive experience. In 2025, the organization issued loans to four businesses totaling $310,587. The organization recorded interest income of $28,560 relating to all outstanding loans.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 85% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.7%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 68.8%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 56.9%; rating input score 57; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 10.5%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.14; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.2%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.9% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.7% of revenue deployed · 68.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $320K · 17 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $1M reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 26 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 19 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 57/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.