Woods Hole Science Technology Education Partnership
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 813269463
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2021–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2018
- Location
- Woods Hole, MA, USA
- Phone
- 5087598274
- Rating
- 40
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Alliance/Advocacy Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $8,065
- Expenses
- $6,818
- Assets
- $5,056
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Robert Heller (President)
People named in this filing
- Robert Heller (President)
- Janet Fields (Director)
- Patti Parker (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Education
What it reported doing in 2025
Mini grants awarded to teachers of member schools, $1346, Mentoring and judges for sceince fairs, no cost, family science nights (2), no cost, lab date with scientists, no cost, liason dinner (376.78), spring and fall open meetings, no cost
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
- 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 - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 5
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 58
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 4.7%; rating input score 5
- Program expense ratio: 5.5%; rating input score 6
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 15.5%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.74; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -66% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 4.7% of revenue deployed · 5.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $377 in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 5/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 6/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.