Wharf District Council Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273091852
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
6175496088
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$485,509
Expenses
$337,766
Assets
$316,887
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Marc Margulies (President)
  • Matthew Murphy (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Kate Dineen (Director)
  • Cheryl Cronin (Director)
  • Stephen Johnston (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Build community cohesiveness and encouraging volunteerism through year-round arts, cultural and beautification projects and programming.

What it reported doing in 2025

Objective: The Wharf District Council is working with Arup to develop a flood resiliency concept plan for Bostons Wharf District. Through a series of due diligence assessments, stakeholder engagement workshops, and engineering design, we are building on the City of Bostons prior resiliency plans to produce a flood protection strategy that incorporates a comprehensive set of district-wide goals and secures the endorsement of each waterfront property owner. Efforts: By working directly with private property owners, residents, business owners, and the City, the project is producing a plan and roadmap for implementation that gives each property owner confidence that their individual flood resiliency investments are coordinated within an effective district-wide flood protection system.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 82% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 6
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.5%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 82.6%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30.4%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.94; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.3% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.5% of revenue deployed · 82.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 26 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $279K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 26 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.