Massachusetts Project 351 Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454103159
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
6173877100
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,135,050
Expenses
$874,177
Assets
$324,635
Liabilities
$67,846

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • CAROLYN CASEY (TREASURER/EXEC DIRECTOR): $160,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Educate youth from 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts in connection with the development of leadership and other related skills, to educate youth on emerging community service trends, innovations and opportunities at the state and federal level.

What it reported doing in 2024

Project 351 engages eighth grade ambassadors representing each of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts in a unique 12-month program that combines immersive service leadership, near-peer mentorship, civic engagement, and training on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Annual program highlights include the service leadership academy, a virtual forum for service learning, skills development, and civic engagement; near-peer mentorship by high school alumni; execution of statewide service campaigns; and two "unity" events (launch day and leadership reunion) with the governor of the commonwealth.

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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.2%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 75.5%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2,161.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 23%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.3%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.2% of revenue deployed · 75.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $660K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $160K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.