Interlock Media Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043196958
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2013
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Cambridge, MA, USA
Phone
6175770000
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Media, Communications Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$61,867
Expenses
$71,093
Assets
$8,220
Liabilities
$61,598

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JONATHAN SCHWARTZ (PRESIDENT/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • JONATHAN SCHWARTZ (PRESIDENT/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • CHARLEY GOULD (BOARD MEMBER)
  • DINAH BUECHNER (BOARD MEMBER)

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

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Education

What it reported doing in 2013

Production of independent film and network pieces. Recent projects focus on prison life, and the aspects that directly impact the neighborhoods into which inmates are released. By frankly discussion rape and a growing faith movement in prison, interlock is attempting to show the damage caused by life in prison, and to explore potential ways to reduce recidivism through healing the damage.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% 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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.3%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 77.7%; rating input score 78

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -14.9%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.12; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 7.49; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.7%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -28.3% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -22.5% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.3% of revenue deployed · 77.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $55K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.