Health and Social Services Consortium Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042936321
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Walpole, MA, USA
Phone
7817844944
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$24,389,904
Expenses
$22,724,020
Assets
$11,116,219
Liabilities
$4,085,833

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SANDRA TOCMAN (PREVIOUS PRESIDENT)
  • JAMIE BRENNER GUTNER (PRESIDENT)
  • ELIZABETH DERWIN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARY JEAN MCDERMOTT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY JEAN MCDERMOTT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $165,700 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To help older adults and individuals living with a disability remain safe and independent at home for as long as possible.

What it reported doing in 2024

During the year, hessco operated multiple programs focused on quality care for older individuals and individuals living with a disability to help them remain in the community. The programs included: information & assistance/referral; homecare; caregiver support; nutrition; protective services; money management; shine (serving the health and information needs of elders); clinical assessment and eligibility; enhanced community options program; community choices program; senior care options programs; one care programs; options counseling; benefit support specialist program; supportive housing; community transition liaison; veterans independent plus programs and various grant programs providing community services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 79% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.4%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 92.9%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.54 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: 6.8%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.49; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.37; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.7%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.4% of revenue deployed · 92.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $21.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $166K · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.