New England Center and Home for Veterans
Legal name: Vietnam Veterans Workshop Inc Dba New England Center and Home for Veterans
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 043007211
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Aug 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Boston, MA, US
- Phone
- 617-371-1800
- Rating
- 88
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Homeless Shelters
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $19,508,368
- Expenses
- $19,407,523
- Assets
- $42,080,500
- Liabilities
- $11,915,704
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
28 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- C ANDREW MCCAWLEY (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- C ANDREW MCCAWLEY (PRESIDENT & CEO): $328,051 total reported compensation
- KEVIN A WARD (EXECUTIVE VP & CFO): $316,857 total reported compensation
- CHARLENE PONTBRIAND (SENIOR VP, ADVANCEMENT): $256,329 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 provide comprehensive services to veterans experiencing or at risk of homelessness, helping them achieve dignified independent living.
What it reported doing in 2024
Transitional housing services represent costs associated with the upkeep of the physical infrastructure of the transitional housing program and over 200 transitional living accommodations which operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The transitional housing program supports more than three quarters of all military veterans in the city of boston who find themselves experiencing homelessness. In fiscal year 2025 and fiscal year 2024, it served approximately 84,000 and 73,000 meals, respectively. Collectively transitional housing services can be defined as "hotel services and include operations, security, maintenance, laundry and food services, which are all essential to ensuring the veterans residing at the center are in a safe, healthy and well maintained environment.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 78% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 93
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 44
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 88%; rating input score 88
- Program expense ratio: 88.1%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $13.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.5%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.17; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 8.8%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 88% of revenue deployed · 88.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $17.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $328K · 28 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.2M reported
- Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.