Nativity School of Worcester Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
030385377
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Worcester, MA, USA
Phone
5087990100
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,975,235
Expenses
$2,971,963
Assets
$32,292,951
Liabilities
$70,570

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • THOMAS MCKENNEY (PRESIDENT)
  • ELIZABETH DELIBERTO (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • THOMAS MCKENNEY (PRESIDENT): $198,336 total reported compensation
  • ELIZABETH DELIBERTO (VICE PRESIDENT): $112,052 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Nativity worcester provides a high-quality education through a co-divisional model in which children experience the best of both worlds: rigorous, single-sex academics and integrated social and extracurricular experiences. This unique model, which maintains nativity's small classrooms and extended school day and year, features two separate academic divisions, the chick weiss boys division and julie power girls division. A nativity education ensures that every child receives personalized academic attention while also developing the social and leadership skills that prepare them for success in high school, college, and beyond.

What it reported doing in 2024

Comprehensive middle school education for boys and girls from economically disadvantaged households, including extended day, extended year, small class sizes, tutoring, school supplies and uniforms, summer camp with leadership opportunities, meals, and social-emotional support.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 98
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49.5%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 70.3%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.06 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 96%; rating input score 96; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 50.3%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.87; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.4%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.2% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49.5% of revenue deployed · 70.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 25 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $198K · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.