Boston Algebra in Middle Schools Project Inc Dba Mathpower

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
223376427
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015, Form 990-EZ 2009
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
6173735934
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Secondary, High School

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$648,711
Expenses
$615,565
Assets
$243,962
Liabilities
$76,600

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT GITTENS (PRESIDENT)
  • THOMAS COLLIGAN (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • THOMAS COLLIGAN (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $55,840 total reported compensation
  • KEVIN NELSON (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND OP): $50,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Mathpower's mission is to transform the lives of urban youth by developing proficiency in advanced mathematics and personal resiliency.

What it reported doing in 2015

Coaching/professional development: mathpower coaches and staff provide individualized workshops to assist teachers and ost providers in addressing specific mathematics topics in grades pre k-8/9(algebra i) using the common core state mathematics standards as a framework. A major task for our math coaches to undertake is helping educators and ost providers understand the common core standards. The new common core mathematics standards have produced a change in the focus of mathematics instruction. Our coaching focuses on major strands of the common core and provides participants with exposure to the new strategies and approaches that will enhance mathematics instruction at ost programs and provide the staff with the skills necessary to support school-based mathematics instruction.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.9%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 74.7%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.12 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.1%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.4; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.2%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13.8% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -17.4% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.9% of revenue deployed · 74.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $460K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $56K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.