Waterfront Historic Area League of New Bedford Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
046130520
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
New Bedford, MA, USA
Phone
5089971776
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Parks and Playgrounds

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$765,257
Expenses
$618,596
Assets
$2,471,388
Liabilities
$821,139

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Erin Miranda (Executive Director)
  • Diana Henry (President)
  • Jeremy Dagold (First Vice President)
  • Lee Blake (Second Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Erin Miranda (Executive Director): $133,802 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the Waterfront Historic Area LeaguE (WHALE) is to foster historic preservation and continued use of the citys architectural heritage to enhance community and economic vitality in New Bedford.

What it reported doing in 2025

WHALE is a 57 year old Community Development Corporation that specializes in historic restoration projects in affordable, workforce and market rate housing, mixed use, and creative economy development. Over the non-profits history we have completed over 55 projects in the city of New Bedford. WHALE not only completes projects as an owner/developer, but also works with developer or non-profits and serves as consultants/partners on real estate services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 67% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filed totals do not add up and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 96
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.1%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 72.6%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $24.82 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 19.2%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.33; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.6%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.1% of revenue deployed · 72.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $449K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $134K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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 — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.