New England Preparatory School Athletic Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010547026
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Hudson, MA, USA
Phone
2075047271
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$797,579
Expenses
$685,061
Assets
$339,545
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RYAN FROST (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LAURIE SACHS (COMMUNICATIO): $31,143 total reported compensation
  • JAMES SMUCKER (TREASURER): $12,080 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Amateur athletic association

What it reported doing in 2024

Nepsac's primary purpose as an amateur athletic organization is to encourage all member schools to conduct the affairs of athletic games, leagues and tournaments according to high standards of sportsmanship and cooperative good will. Because athletics are an integral part of the educational programs of member schools, affording young people innumerable opportunities for personal growth and development, nepsac shall be concerned with seeing that enjoyable and healthy interscholastic programs for students are provided. In every way at its disposal, nepsac will provide leadership and legislative action for its member schools to insure that the intentions of this organization are met. The nepsac executive board will, in every way at its disposal, provide leadership, direction and legislative action for its member schools and related coaches' associations pursuant to the administration of interscholastic athletics. A further purpose of nepsac is to provide a forum for the interchange of ideas and to help with the problems of its member schools. Nepsac will advise and guide, particularly when asked in a situation where an impasse exists.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 72% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 71
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.2%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 88.7%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.1%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.5; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.3%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.1% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 26.6% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 30.7% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.2% of revenue deployed · 88.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 20 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $608K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $31K · 21 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.