Chatham Village Charitable Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
466902443
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Phone
4124314300
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Reported finances

Revenue
$44,109
Expenses
$37,549
Assets
$47,674
Liabilities
$450

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELIZABETH HUFFMAN (PRESIDENT)
  • JOE MASSARELLI (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ELIZABETH HUFFMAN (PRESIDENT)
  • JOE MASSARELLI (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JAMES DENOVA (ASST.SECT/TREASURER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

To protect, preserve, maintain and enhance the structures and environs of the chatham village historic district, a government certified property listed on the national register of historic places and named a national historic landmark by the united states department of the interior, and to foster public awareness and educational opportunities for arthitect, planners, preservationists, scholars and students.

What it reported doing in 2025

In february 2023, the trust retained pm contracting to restore the historic storefronts in the small commercial area at the corner of Virginia ave. And bigham st. In the pittsburgh neighborhood of mt. Washington. The contractor was selected by public bidding in august, 2022. The budget was raised through grants awarded by the Pennsylvania department of community & economic development with matching amounts raised by the trust from residents of chatham village homes. Work began in september 2023 and was 50% complete by the end of the year. The summer 2023 budget impasse in the pa legislature caused the trust to obtain and fully use an emergency line of credit to fund start-up costs for the restoration project. The credit facility was expensive and the trust raised additional funds for the interest costs. Finally, the trust reimbursed the chatham village corporation for administrative and accounting support for the project and other reporting requirements.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 65
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.1%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.9%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.27; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.7% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.1% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $38K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.