Community Foundation of North Central Ma
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 043537449
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2022
- Location
- Fitchburg, MA, USA
- Phone
- 9783458383
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $14,947,483
- Expenses
- $6,291,044
- Assets
- $95,321,703
- Liabilities
- $9,873,138
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- STEPHEN J ADAMS (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- STEPHEN J ADAMS (PRESIDENT): $219,030 total reported compensation
- ERIN THOMASON (DIRECTOR OF PHILANTHROPY): $115,887 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
"as a trusted steward, we provide flexible giving options that simplify the achievement of donors' charitable goals. Through deep knowledge, leadership, collaboration and grantmaking, we provide education, guidance and resources to strengthen and improve our communities.
What it reported doing in 2024
The community foundation of north central Massachusetts is a non-profit foundation that manages charitable funds established by individuals, families, businesses and other non-profit organizations. Our mission is to promote philantrophy in our region and to support philanthropists to invest in the communities and causes they care passionately about. Donors established 16 new charitable funds this year with us, such as scholarship, designated, donor advised, fiscal sponsors and agency funds. We continued to distribute from our discretionary funds to nonprofits in north central Massachusetts and beyond who's missions aligned with our interest areas in the environment, education and career readiness, community enrichment, organizational development, healthcare and critical community needs.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 98% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 66
- Transparency & Controls: 64
- Accountability: 96
- Sustainability: 87
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 50.8%; rating input score 51
- Program expense ratio: 87.8%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $37.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd 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: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 57.9%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 15.15; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.3%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 50.8% of revenue deployed · 87.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 17 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $219K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 35 of 37 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 117 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 102 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.