Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus Leadership Development Educationa

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042738443
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
6174519294
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$115,742
Expenses
$146,511
Assets
$97,618
Liabilities
$27,508

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAWNE SHAND (PRESIDENT)
  • DELORIS PETTIS (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • AMY DIAMOND (TREASURER)
  • CAITLYN CLARKE (DIRECTOR)
  • CAROLYN ASSA (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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Massachusetts women's political caucus is a multipartisan organization founded in 1971 to maximize the participation of women of all ages in the political process and to increase the number of women appointed and elected to public office and public policy positions.

What it reported doing in 2020

The Massachusetts women's political caucus hosts an annual fundraising event, featuring the state's inspiring women leaders. In 2020 the event featured women of color who serve in municipal offices across the state. They spoke about leadership in the public sphere.

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 available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.4%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 67.5%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -26.6%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.67; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.4% of revenue deployed · 67.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $99K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 20 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2020
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.