Roxbury Presbyterian Church Social Impact Center

Legal name: Roxbury Presbyterian Church Social Impact Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043506648
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Roxbury, MA, United States
Phone
(617) 249-4372
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Primary, Elementary Schools
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,623,569
Expenses
$1,892,455
Assets
$2,032,523
Liabilities
$93,708

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LOUISE BURNHAM PACKARD (PRESIDENT/CHAIR)
  • KRYSTAL PEGRAM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KRYSTAL PEGRAM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $150,167 total reported compensation
  • TABITHA GASTON (DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS): $130,787 total reported compensation
  • KATHLEEN BRITTAN (DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT): $125,690 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Love, compassion and community guide the Roxbury Presbyterian Church Social Impact Center, the 501(c)(3) non-profit arm of the Roxbury Presbyterian Church. The Social Impact Center develops and implements educational, social, cultural, mental, and physical well-being programs designed to promote and serve the surrounding communities of Roxbury, Massachusetts, and beyond.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization carried out the cory johnson program for post-traumatic healing (cjp) to constituents in the greater boston area. The cjp offers comprehensive programming to address the mind, body, and spiritual impacts of trauma which fosters connection and empowers individuals to take active roles in helping themselves and others heal.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.4%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 63.5%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.33 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 27th 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: -16.6%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.07; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.3%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 20.7% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19.6% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.3% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 75.4% of revenue deployed · 63.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $150K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.