John Woodman Higgins Armory Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042240363
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Worcester, MA, USA
Phone
5088536015
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
History Museums

Reported finances

Revenue
$214,721
Expenses
$8,010,263
Assets
$2,504,597
Liabilities
$2,504,597

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RUSSELL B MILLHOLLAND (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN C STOWE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JAMES C DONNELLY JR (PRESIDENT)
  • JAMES E NELSON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SUZANNE MAAS (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SUZANNE MAAS (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $99,946 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

As of december 31, 2014, the core collection was transferred to worcester art museum. All de-accessioned collection items are being liquidated.

What it reported doing in 2014

On october 25, 2012 and november 5, 2012, respectively the worcester art museum and higgins armory museum unanimously adopted resolutions expressing their mutual intentions to collaborate in the transfer of the higgins collection to the worcester art museum. By vote on march 27, 2013, the incorporators of the museum authorized the museum's board of trustees to finalize a covenant agreement with the worcester art museum and wind-up the corporation's affairs. On november 19,2013, the presidents of the museum and the worcester art museum executed covenants for the transfer of assets of the higgins armory museum to the worcester art museum (the "covenenats") contingent upon regulatory and court approvals, which were granted on december 20, 2013. Accordingly the core collection, endowment funds, and proceeds from the liquidation of de-accessioned items and furniture and fixtures were transferred to the worcester art museum in 2014.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 91.5%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: -3,630.5%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.2%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 148.1% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -9.2% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 91.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 58 of 58 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $100K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.