Yes We Must Coalition
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 541439744
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2021, Form 990-N 2011
- Location
- Berlin, MA, USA
- Phone
- 5083587704
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $756,487
- Expenses
- $988,255
- Assets
- $1,975,100
- Liabilities
- $98,236
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DR GLORIA NEMEROWICZ (President)
Highest reported compensation
- DR GLORIA NEMEROWICZ (President): $190,038 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 yes we must coalition strives to increase degree attainment of low-income students by promoting the work of small, independent, not-for-profit colleges and universities committed to this purpose.
What it reported doing in 2024
Collaborative projects are projects in which yes we must coalition works with a defined group of member schools on a specific goal. The organization typically receives a grant to fund this type of project. One current project is funded by ascendium education solutions, inc. And its purpose is to plan collaboratively to create career pathways in four-year degree programs. A second project is funded by the gates foundation for an intiative that will create a collaborative network to assist member institutions to collect, analyze, and use data to meet their individual and collective needs.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 92
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 31
- Sustainability: 30
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 88.5%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: $25.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th 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: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -30.6%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 19.2%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 18.3% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 88.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $875K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $190K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.