Southeastern Ct Robotics Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 844925069
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Groton, CT, USA
- Phone
- 8608762721
- Rating
- 71
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Education N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $76,998
- Expenses
- $71,023
- Assets
- $39,568
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- FRANCES J MCGLINCHEY (PRESIDENT)
- BRIAN MCGLINCHEY (VICE-PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- FRANCES J MCGLINCHEY (PRESIDENT)
- BRIAN MCGLINCHEY (VICE-PRESIDENT)
- PAUL MCGLINCHEY (TREASURER)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Southeastern ct robotics, inc is organized exclusively for charitable and educational purposes to provide accessible, hands-on stem education programs for students in southeastern Connecticut from ates 6-17. The organization delivers robotics-based learning experiences that develop skills in engineering, programming, problem-solving, teamwork and communication, while preparing participants for higher education and careers in science and techology fields.
What it reported doing in 2025
The program provided year-round, mentor-led instruction inrobotics engineering, programming and design to 46 students insoutheastern ct through structured team-based learning and participation in competitive robotics.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 72
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 38
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 70.5%; rating input score 70
- Program expense ratio: 75.9%; rating input score 76
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 7.8%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.56; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 15.5%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 70.5% of revenue deployed · 75.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $54K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.