Bronx Shepherds Restoration Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133013030
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Bronx, NY, USA
Phone
7182990500
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Home Improvement and Repairs

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,414,429
Expenses
$2,069,997
Assets
$2,557,549
Liabilities
$1,773,849

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • REV HELEN WINGATE (PRESIDENT)
  • ELDER BENJAMIN MOULTRIC (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • REV ANTHONY LOWE (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • CELINE PETIT (CFO): $153,936 total reported compensation
  • REV ANTHONY LOWE (CEO): $150,961 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide affordable housing and housing services in the bronx, New York.

What it reported doing in 2016

Bronx shepherds is a sub-grantee of the weatherization assistance program which is funded by the department of energy and the us department of human services, and administered by the state division of housing and community renewal's energy service bureau. This program provides free energy upgrades to eligible homeowners and to tenant occupied buildings. These services include but not limited to new heating systems, window replacements and repairs, roof, window and pipe insulation, electrical saving measures.bronx shepherds has weatherized 225 units including both owner occupied small homes and tenant multi-family residences.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 72.9%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 11
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.3%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.24; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.69; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.7%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.9% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -18.2% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14.8% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74% of revenue deployed · 72.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $154K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $428K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 16 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.