Passive House New England Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
465761356
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Somerville, MA, USA
Phone
6178630356
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$249,958
Expenses
$253,445
Assets
$236,075
Liabilities
$6,030

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Aaron Gunderson (Executive Director)
  • Alexander Gard-Murray (Executive Director)
  • Hank Keating (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Aaron Gunderson (Executive Director): $127,975 total reported compensation
  • Alexander Gard-Murray (Executive Director): $19,385 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Passive House Massachusetts is a member-based non-profit organization that promotes a healthy and comfortable built environment that significantly reduces energy consumption and lowers carbon emissions by utilizing the Passive House building standard and other high-performance building strategies, focusing on education, training, outreach, and advocacy. We regularly host meetings, trainings, tours, and other events related to Passive House design and construction and serve as a hub of knowledge for high-performance design in the state and region.

What it reported doing in 2024

Our third main program service is conducting research to assess the training needs of the high-performance building industry, the barriers and obstacles involved, the availability of existing training programs, and provide recommendations for future program development. We compiled existing data on contractors and their current role in clean energy and Passive House construction through an in-depth survey of 19 contractors. We analyzed the Passive House and High-Performance Building market and identified potential growth areas. We developed an outreach plan for contractors in the construction, contracting, trades and related industries. And we shared the results with peer organizations. This work was supported by a $50,000 grant from the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (reported in Part VIII, line 1). Expenses include contractor labor to conduct this research.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.2%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 65.3%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.4%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.93; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 58.1%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 26.7% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 30.1% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66.2% of revenue deployed · 65.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $119K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $128K · 13 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $128K reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.