Massachusetts Bail Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
824924766
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Dorchester, MA, USA
Phone
6178194580
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$343,051
Expenses
$683,070
Assets
$6,034,652
Liabilities
$105,323

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jessica Thrall (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Janhavi Madabushi (Executive Dir.): $96,538 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Massachusetts Bail Fund (MBF) pays bail to secure freedom from pre-trial incarceration so that people can be free while fighting their case.

What it reported doing in 2024

Our organization posted 1,518 bails in 2024 which means a significant portion of those who could not afford bail in pre-trial detention were able to access bail help through our organization. We distributed 300 bags for those coming out of jail with personal hygiene items, resources and harm reduction supplies to help people get through the first 24 hours of re-entry as well as 200 coats in the winter time. We led multiple workshops for the community to understand bail practices, pre-trial detention and specific issues at county jails and mobilized over 60 volunteers over the course of the year to partake in outreach, tabling, bailing and project work. We also anchored multiple projects around mapping pre-trial detention in MA and understanding and challenging bail forfeitures, organized against carceral expansion projects at local jails and supported local organizers and organizations in understanding the arrest to arraignment process.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 66
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.3%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 41.3%; rating input score 41
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 52.6%; rating input score 53; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -99.1%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.83; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.1%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.6% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -16.8% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.5% per year; rating input score 100; 86th 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: 82.3% of revenue deployed · 41.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $282K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $97K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 29 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.