Massachusetts Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 042651860
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2020–2020
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2012
- Location
- Burlington, MA, USA
- Phone
- 3478820151
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Neighborhood Centers
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $285
- Expenses
- $22,609
- Assets
- $46,845
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SHANA GIBBS (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- SHANA GIBBS (PRESIDENT)
- JULIA BARNES (TREASURER)
- ANNA NOLAN (SECRETARY)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Massrid recognizes the minority status of deaf people and the long history of linguistic and cultural oppression they have endured. We therefore publicly proclaim our respect and support for deaf people's right to self determination and true communication access. It is the mission of massrid to work together with the deaf community in meeting the interpreting needs of Massachusetts residents by enhancing the quality and availability of sign language interpreters.
What it reported doing in 2020
Education through workshops for interpreters, state screened, licensed, working deaf interpreters, road to deaf interpreting graduates, ips students and any deaf person interested in becoming an interpreter.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
- 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. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 68
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 32
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 15.8%; rating input score 16
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -7,833%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.07; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 15.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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: Program expense ratio scored 16/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.