Community Works Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042762623
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
Newton Center, MA, USA
Phone
6177730874
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$97,516
Expenses
$93,406
Assets
$60,749
Liabilities
$140,680

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CATHERINE JOSEPH (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • CRAIG NORBERG-BOHM (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • CATHERINE JOSEPH (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $33,779 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Community works is a cooperative fund raising effort among community-based and community-controlled organizations. Our goal is to develop a stable and growing source of support for our members primarily through participation in workplace fund raising.community works is both a means to raise funds and an agent of change. Our presence in the workplace expands traditional definitions of charitable activity to include advocacy and community organizing; increases employee awareness of community resources; demonstrates alternative approaches to addressing pressing issues; focuses attention on issues not previously addressed; and fosters the empowerment of donors as they choose where they will direct their contributions.

What it reported doing in 2019

Provision of financial support and technical assistance for charitable and educational member organizations. Member organizations represent community-based advocacy groups supporting low-income and minority constituencies.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 69.9%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.2%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.65; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.32; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 36.2%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -15.5% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -11.2% per year; rating input score 0; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -15.6% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67% of revenue deployed · 69.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $65K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $34K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 24 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2011 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.