Massachusetts Family Institute Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043113783
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2009
Location
Acton, MA, USA
Phone
7815690400
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,002,387
Expenses
$950,696
Assets
$1,116,183
Liabilities
$22,411

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

32 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL KING (PRESIDENT)
  • ANDREW BECKWITH (PRESIDENT EMERTUS/DIRECTOR (PART-YEAR))

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL KING (PRESIDENT): $150,236 total reported compensation
  • SAMUEL WHITING (GENERAL COUNSEL): $114,115 total reported compensation
  • KENT SCOTT (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $78,236 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Massachusetts family institute (mfi) is a non-partisan public policy organization dedicated to strengthening families in Massachusetts.(continued on schedule o) mfi engages in research and education of a wide range of public policy issues to strengthen the well-being, health and safety of families.

What it reported doing in 2025

Lobbying and non-partisan issue advocacy and constituency communications on issues concerning the well-being of families in Massachusetts including education, economic growth, health care, taxes, marriage and the preservation of life.

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 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 93
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.5%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 56.3%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.8%; rating input score 96; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.2%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.17; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 36%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.2% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.5% of revenue deployed · 56.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 24 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $535K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $150K · 32 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.