Woods Hole Theater Company Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237367469
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Woods Hole, MA, USA
Phone
5083609488
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$36,670
Expenses
$22,668
Assets
$38,277
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HELEN DEMELLO (PRESIDENT)
  • CHARLOTTE GREEN (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • HELEN DEMELLO (PRESIDENT)
  • GARY VACON (DIRECTOR)
  • DAVID ISEMAN (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

The purpose shall be to engage in and promote the cultural growth of the community of woods hole, ma and vicinity, by advancing interest, skill and appreciation of and providing instructions in the theatrical arts and sciences, including related literary, educational, musical and similar cultural activities.

What it reported doing in 2025

To sponsor, conduct and present theatrical presentations, workshops, exhibitions, festivals, entertainment and symposia, and to encourage the participation of the public in such events.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 93% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.6%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 38.2%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.69; rating input score 61; 61st 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: -3.6% per year; rating input score 0; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.6% per year; rating input score 0; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.6% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $23K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2015 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.