Old Colony Library Network Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042925259
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Braintree, MA, USA
Phone
7817942513
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,450,729
Expenses
$1,400,259
Assets
$2,053,102
Liabilities
$113,800

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAUL ENGLE (PRESIDENT)
  • JESSI FINNIE (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • LINDA STONE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID SLATER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID SLATER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $156,965 total reported compensation
  • JADA MAXWELL (ASST. DIRECTOR): $117,778 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To facilitate the establishment and operation of an automated resource-sharing network of libraries on the south shore of boston, Massachusetts.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization is a cooperative of 27 member libraries located on the south shore of Massachusetts. Membership includes 26 town and city libraries and 1 academic library. The cooperative nature enables member libraries to provide services that they would not be able to afford on their own. The organization's shared automation system is available to provide their users with access to over one million titles, including books, videos, compact discs and magazines.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 69% 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 most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.8%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 91.1%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 3.5%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.47; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.6%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.8% of revenue deployed · 91.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $157K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.