MACC Charities

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237354956
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Manchester, CT, USA
Phone
(860) 647-0440
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development – Religious Leadership
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,768,967
Expenses
$1,723,937
Assets
$3,623,905
Liabilities
$55,121

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRIS SAVAGE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHANNON BALDASSARIO (EXECUTIVE DI): $78,929 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

MACC has been a part of the Manchester community for over 5 decades, and its mission has always been the same; “Building Partnerships to Break Cycles of Poverty in our Community.” We each come to MACC to serve, bonded by our work and shared pledge to help those who need a hand up. WFSB interview with MACC Staff on the important work we do. The Manchester Area Conference of Churches, Inc. provides direct support and assistance for basic emergency needs not met by other organizations in our area. We motivate and empower individuals with the skills necessary to break cycles of poverty and enrich the lives of those we serve. MACC has been serving the community for over 50 years. Our Community Kitchen offers a nutritionally balanced noontime meal six (6) days a week with five (5) prescheduled Sundays throughout the year. We never close for holidays or inclement weather. Providing...

What it reported doing in 2024

A collaborative work of member churches and other organizations that have united with the community in support of those who are in need of emergency food, clothing, and/or help with general assistance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 46% for direct work, and 54% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.7%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 82.3%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

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; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • 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: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.5%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.1; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 80.7% of revenue deployed · 82.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $79K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.