Cambridge Neighborhood Apartment Housing Services Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222479448
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Cambridge, MA, USA
Phone
6178684858
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Reported finances

Revenue
$986,100
Expenses
$274,534
Assets
$39,537,592
Liabilities
$744,971

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUSAN RICHARDS (PRESIDENT)
  • SARA BARCAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SARA BARCAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $291,859 total reported compensation
  • KATE GILMORE (DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE): $213,707 total reported compensation
  • HIEN BURNHAM (CONTROLLER): $190,409 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Cambridge neighborhood apartment housing services, inc was organized to promote cooperative efforts in the city of cambridge to people of all religions and nationalities who desire to live in decent, safe, sanitary conditions and to serve as a referral center for the provision of information and technical assistance regarding housing rehabilitation and to provide affordable loans or other financing assistance to property owners to make improvements consistent with local housing codes when adequate private financing can not be obtained.

What it reported doing in 2025

Technical assistance & low cost loans to property owners of low & moderate income housing in cambridge to make improvements consistent with local housing codes when adequate private financing is unobtainable.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% 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 - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 25.3%; rating input score 25
  • Program expense ratio: 91%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 72.2%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 144.02; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 58.7%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -16.5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8.9% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 25.3% of revenue deployed · 91% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $250K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $292K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 18 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 25/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.