National Association of Metal Finishers - New England
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 900085941
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Shrewsbury, MA, USA
- Phone
- 5088426314
- Rating
- 85
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $37,272
- Expenses
- $38,018
- Assets
- $42,903
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOHN GILBERT (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- CHRISTOPHER CAPALBO (SECRETARY/TR)
- RALPH CAPALBO (PROGRAM DIRE)
- JOHN GILBERT (PRESIDENT)
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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The purpose of the national association of metal finishers - new england is to advance, protect and perpetuate the surface finishing industry, and to develop the highest standards of service, quality and conduct. Nec accomplishes the foregoing by contributing to the national organization and holding aproximately 10 meetings annually. Items of discussion include national efforts to improve the industry as well as guest speakers discussing relevant topics. Other activities include an industry newsletter and trade shows.
What it reported doing in 2024
See attached description of accomplishments.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 98
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 40
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 98.8%; rating input score 99
- Program expense ratio: 96.8%; rating input score 97
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -2%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.13; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -5.5% per year; rating input score 0; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 98.8% of revenue deployed · 96.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $37K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.