Ipswich Refugee Program Incorporated

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821543114
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Ipswich, MA, USA
Phone
6176947134
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$70,487
Expenses
$16,385
Assets
$87,860
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Lynn Lenhart (Board Member, President)

People named in this filing

  • Glenn Gibbs (Board Member)
  • Meredith Joss (Board Member)
  • Lynn Lenhart (Board Member, President)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The IRP is a volunteer organization that provides resettlement services to refugees and immigrants in Ipswich, MA. Our support services include housing, employment, transportation, legal services, government benefits, education, access to health care, banking and language classes.

What it reported doing in 2025

Provided housing, medical access, school enrollment, government benefits enrollment, driving lessons, donated furniture and clothing, temporary housing, food and utility assistance to 17 Afghan refugees (3 single men, 1 married couple, 1 family of 4 and one family of 7).

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30.8%; rating input score 31
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 76.8%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.36; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 100% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30.8% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $22K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.