Massachusetts Defense Technology Initiative Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204192918
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Waltham, MA, USA
Phone
7818906482
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,000
Expenses
$5,892
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Christopher R Anderson (President)

People named in this filing

  • Christopher R Anderson (President)
  • Pete Sherlock (Director)
  • Thomas Jarbeau (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 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote job creation and growth opportunities for businesses and universities in the New England defense sector.

What it reported doing in 2014

Promotes job creation and growth opportunities for technology businesses and universities in the New England defense sector. In collaboration with active support and input from members of its regional Advisory Board, DTI is building on its success in leading the region's strategy in support of Hanscom AFB and the US Army Natick Solider Systems Center in the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure process.Regional Defense Strategy DTI has developed a sustainable New England strategy that will both strengthen the regions defense technology cluster and provide specific business opportunities for its members. In recent years it has become apparent that DTIs mission has become more critical than ever. New England possesses one of the world's most diverse defense technology ecosystems, but changing political, economic and fiscal dynamics are threatening to hinder the region's growth potential and ability to develop the next generation of defense technology. Significant Pentagon force reductions are already underway and rumblings about a new BRAC, likely in 2015, have started to grow louder. And other military states and regions have been working in a more coordinated and political - fashion to pursue Pentagon and DHS contracts, as well as base expansion. For these reasons, DTI is working with federal and state elected officials to coalesce our region's defense technology assets around a coordinated strategy.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 27th 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: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -17.8%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -11.6% per year; rating input score 0; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -19.1% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2009 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.