Wilmington Community Television Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042969948
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Wilmington, MA, USA
Phone
9786574066
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts, Culture, and Humanities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$586,637
Expenses
$871,534
Assets
$999,418
Liabilities
$387,899

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SAMUEL PERKINS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ROBERT HAMEL (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SAMUEL PERKINS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $84,740 total reported compensation
  • MATTHEW MCMAKIN (OPERATIONS MANAGER): $74,692 total reported compensation
  • MARIA ALIBERTI (DIRECTOR OF CONTENT ARTS DIRECTOR): $59,115 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Wctv is open to the public and welcoming of new ideas and new members. We received 24,929.36 in donations/sponsorships, produced more than 160 videos including a docuseries under the lights, human interest profiles and live events. We have increased our instantgram following by 55 1 million views, appx. And our youtube subscribers by 132.

What it reported doing in 2024

Wctv live broadcasts all selectboard, school committee, finance committee, annual and special related meetings throughout the year. These meetings are live broadcast on our verizon and comcast channels, and also streamed online, and also rebroadcast and archived. Wctv must set-up broadcast equipment, microphones, etc., and break them down before and after each meeting. Wctv does not receive payment for any municipal meeting coverage, but it is a stipulation and condition for receiving franchise fees our funding from verizon and comcast through the town of wilmington.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 24
  • Transparency & Controls: 52
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 19.8%; rating input score 20
  • Program expense ratio: 13.3%; rating input score 13
  • Fundraising efficiency: $38.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -48.6%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.15; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.39; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 34.3%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 43.6% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 19.8% of revenue deployed · 13.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $85K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 20/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.