Provincetown Community Compact Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043208909
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Provincetown, MA, USA
Phone
5084871930
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$666,802
Expenses
$605,871
Assets
$582,347
Liabilities
$172,618

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAY CRITCHLEY (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAY CRITCHLEY (PRESIDENT): $91,781 total reported compensation
  • REGINA BINDER (CHAIR/CLERK): $17,500 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 nurture the cultural well being of provincetown, its people, and the natural environment of the lower cape, and to act as a catalyst for collaborative projects

What it reported doing in 2024

The compact advanced the cultural well being of provincetown, its people, and the natural environment of the outer cape and acted as an incubator (think-ubator) for social, environmental and artistic projects. Projects include: ali'i king campfire quorum, cape cool, haiti project, outermost contra, peregrine theater, prayer ribbons, provincetown playwrights lab, rock harbor alliance, the dunes, wellfleet porchfest, cape cod dramatic arts, emergency medical supplies ukraine, friends of provincetown parks, model united nations(muni), tim mccarthy human rights champion, plovr. The compact has received a federal grant from the national park service, underrepresented communities, to document lgbtq sites in provincetown historic ditrict. Ginny binder is directing the grant.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 75% for direct work, and 25% for grants.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 49
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.6%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 77.1%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.1%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.96; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.1% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.6% of revenue deployed · 77.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $467K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $92K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 29 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 10 filed related-organization links
  • 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: 6 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 37/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.