Manchester Police Athletic League

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
020459470
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Manchester, NH, USA
Phone
6036260211
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Centers, Clubs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$668,008
Expenses
$691,744
Assets
$1,003,888
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

People named in this filing

  • CELIA BELLETETE (DIRECTOR)
  • JAMES BRENNAN (DIRECTOR)
  • TINA BROWN (DIRECTOR)

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

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

Overview

Mission

To instill values, respect, responsibility and community in youth ages 5-18 and foster positive relationships with police officers to help kids make healthy choices and become productive citizens.

What it reported doing in 2024

Juvenile court diversion - accredited program holds juvenile offenders referred by police accountable while helping them gain skills and support needed to stay on track. Participants avoid court and a criminal record, preserving opportunity for success. In fy 2025, twelve monthly panels convened to hear cases from juvenile offenders and develop individualized contracts mapping out goals for making amends and building skills needed to make better choices in the future. This approach to juvenile justice has proven effective: of the 112 youth who completed mpal's diversion program in 2023, 97% avoided subsequent arrests in the first year following program completion, compared to only 59% of youth going through the traditional court-based justice system. 137 youth participated in the program in fy25.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.3%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 76.2%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.6%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.45; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.3% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.3% of revenue deployed · 76.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $527K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.