Worcester Community Action Council Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042382160
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Worcester, MA, USA
Phone
5087541176
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$41,327,629
Expenses
$40,478,285
Assets
$14,633,714
Liabilities
$6,025,743

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARYBETH CAMPBELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • CASEY BURNS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CHGW)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARYBETH CAMPBELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $196,072 total reported compensation
  • ROBERT SCHERER (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $165,979 total reported compensation
  • KERRY BRENNAN (CHIEF PROGRAM OFFICER): $154,707 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the worcester community action council, inc. Is helping people move to economic self-sufficiency through programs, partnerships, and advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2024

Liheap - low income home energy assistance program. The program includes a fuel assistance program that provides assistance with winter heating bills for low income homeowners and renters. Energy assistance participants are serviced at wcac's main office in worcester, ma and six outreach sites in the council's service area. Wcac processed applications from 15,988 households in fy 2025. Wcac offers energy conservation services for 1 to 4 family unit buildings, occupied by low income households, including weatherization, heating system repair and replacement and appliance management services. $15,506,554 in federal funds was paid directly to fuel vendors for home heating assistance. Total fuel clients served from all sources: 17,672.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.9%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 93.9%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $27.72 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.9%; rating input score 100; 39th 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.1%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.36; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.9%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.9% of revenue deployed · 93.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $38M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $196K · 26 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $8.7M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.