Friends of Memorial Hall Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900892021
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2021
Location
Charlestown, MA, USA
Phone
6173063030
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$319,210
Expenses
$372,537
Assets
$40,726
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Joseph Zuffante (President)
  • Stanley Leonard (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Joseph Zuffante (President)
  • Stanley Leonard (Vice President)
  • David Hennessey (Clerk)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the Friends is the historic preservation of Memorial Hall including its design and reconstruction. Built in 1793 as the residence of Samual Dexter a member of President John Adams Cabinet the building was converted in 1888 into the Abraham Lincoln Post 11 of the Grand Army of the Republic. Post 11 later expanded to serve all veterans. Today the building is being renovated to provide a stable headquarters for veteran support and community services.

What it reported doing in 2024

Historic Preservation NTEE code A84: Under a contract with the City of Boston the organization continued restoring the historic building and grounds to their 1888 appearance. Several vendors provided services and materials with principal craftsmanship from the Preservation Carpentry program of the North Bennet Street School. The building nearly condemned in the 1990s has undergone extensive structural and exterior rehabilitation and is on track for completion by the end of 2024. These expenses were covered by the Community Preservation Committee of the City of Boston with additional assistance provided by the fundraising efforts of the Friends.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 86% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 53
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 96.6%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -16.7%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.11; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 47% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 37.2% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 8 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $360K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $138K reported
  • Consistency: 41 of 42 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.