Intervalley Project Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 043552640
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2017–2020
- Forms available
- Form 990 2016, Form 990-EZ 2020
- Location
- Newton, MA, USA
- Phone
- 6177968836
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Management & Technical Assistance
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $182,645
- Expenses
- $173,964
- Assets
- $74,240
- Liabilities
- $22,139
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARTHA CONGDON (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- KENNETH GALDSTON (EXEC.DIR./LEAD ORGANIZER (THRU JUN))
- MARTHA CONGDON (PRESIDENT)
- PAUL GAUDET (TREASURER)
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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Community empowerment.
What it reported doing in 2020
The intervalley project (ivp)'s major activities during the prior year were in three areas: support for community campaigns - we supported our member organizations in their community campaigns to win concrete changes that will lead to greater social and economic justice. As examples, during this period ivp member groups successfully worked on their own and in coalition with others in support of the following:- expanding the provisions of the Connecticut domestic workers bill of rights - while, as a result of our earlier work, home healthcare and other workers are now recognized as workers entitled to state protections, benefitting thousands of low-wage workers, naugatuck valley project organized with allies to win many other provisions of a basic rights program, such as protection from wage theft.- naugatuck valley project continued to organize to preserve the community benefits provided by Connecticut non-profit hospitals when they are converted to for-profit status. This includes, as an example, outreach provisions to reduce readmissions.- berkshire interfaith organizing continued to organize to win an increase in emergency food funding in Massachusetts by linking their work into a statewide campaign.- kennebec valley organization continued to organize to win funding for 250 units of elderly housing, and a significant increase in head start funding in Maine.- Rhode Island organizing project continued to organize in Rhode Island with dual eligible" residents -- those old enough to receive medicare and poor enough to receive medicaid, making it easier for them to receive all of their benefits.support for leadership and organizer development:- supported the development of leadership and organizing skills for hundreds of leaders and a dozen organizers through the ivp summer organizing and through local workshops for leaders, as well as through weekly in-person and phone meetings with the 11 organizers who work with our member organizations.financial self-sufficiency training and support: - increased the financial self-sufficiency of ivp and its member groups through training workshops on fundraising and by focusing more of our leader and organizer time on individual giving. The result was a significant increase in individual giving for the network.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 30
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 74.4%; rating input score 74
- Program expense ratio: 78.1%; rating input score 78
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 4.8%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.43; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.9%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -8.1% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 74.4% of revenue deployed · 78.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $136K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2017 to 2020
- 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: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.