Merrimack Valley Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043132443
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Lawrence, MA, USA
Phone
9786860650
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development
Affiliation
Interfaith

Reported finances

Revenue
$484,964
Expenses
$189,267
Assets
$338,094
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JULIO R MEJIA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • PAUL GAUDET (President)
  • KEVIN JONES (Vice President)
  • TOM RAICHE (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • JULIO R MEJIA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $71,259 total reported compensation
  • ARON WANDER (COMMUNITY ORGANIZE): $25,414 total reported compensation
  • JOSHUA CLAUDIO (COMMUNITY ORGANIZE): $21,071 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To unite religious, labor, and community organizations in campaigns to expand economic opportunities and good jobs, save and create affordable housing, and to address other issues related to the welfare of the merrimack valley region; and through these campaigns develop the leadership skills of valley residents, particularly those unrepresented in public life. Immigrant justice campaignssubstance use disorder & criminal justice campaign. Worker justice campaign. Food insecurity - together with merrimack valley interfaith network, mvp works to coordinate efforts to organize volunteers, maintain relationships between pastors, and raise funds to meet the great need for food. The importance of maintaining food for the most vulnerable in the community goes hand-in-hand with community empowerment. Accompanying and building a communitarian and participatory shares leadership is the mission of mvp. Community engagement

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 33.1%; rating input score 33
  • Program expense ratio: 84.8%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $123.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 61%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.79; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 62.2%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 33.1% of revenue deployed · 84.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 0 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $161K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $71K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 33/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.