New England Poetry Club Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237424332
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Revere, MA, USA
Phone
6178389147
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$38,750
Expenses
$27,724
Assets
$292,279
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Steven Ratiner (Director and President)
  • Linda Conte (Director and Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Steven Ratiner (Director and President)
  • Linda Conte (Director and Vice President)
  • Doug Holder (Director and Clerk)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Promote poetry in New England by providing: - Readings by NEPC members - Readings in collaboration with Friends of Longfellow House - Poetry Workshops for NEPC members - Named Contests and Awards to poets of all ages - Contest and Awards to poets enrolled in NE colleges - BIPOC grants for projects and individual poetic achievement

What it reported doing in 2025

In collaboration with Friends of Longfellow House Summer Reading Series: Honoraria for 9 Readers (including Golden Rose Winner) ($6,540); Golden Rose dinner & reception ($932.74), videography ($1,675 + $56.29). We judged 3 Longfellow House Student Contests with 391 entries that recognized 5 winners & 9 finalists ($240) and reception ($104.88). Reception for Richard Blanco reading ($85.99). Pizza party/thank you for Longfellow House staff ($123.21). Thank you gift for Somerville Media staff -- cookies and coffee ($76.20)

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 75% for direct work, and 25% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.3%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 72.4%; rating input score 72

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 28.5%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.54; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25.6% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 20.8% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.9% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.3% of revenue deployed · 72.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $20K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.