Chelmsford Housing Elder Partnership Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311758237
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2022
Location
Chelmsford, MA, USA
Phone
9782567425
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities

Reported finances

Revenue
$403,006
Expenses
$3,754,936
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DENISE MARCAURELLE (PRESIDENT)
  • CORNELIA DONAHUE COMTOIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CORNELIA DONAHUE COMTOIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $182,300 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide 51 units of housing for low-income elderly and/or handicapped persons and to promote the welfare of elderly and handicapped persons and families.

What it reported doing in 2022

The organization maintains a residential facility with 51 units which provides housing to low income elderly persons in chelmsford, ma. Funding to purchase the facility was provided by the u.s. Dept. Of housing and urban development. The activity on this form 990 reflects the activity of this property through february 28, 2023. Effective march 1, 2023, the organization transferred ownership of the property to choice housing opportunities for intergenerational and community endeavors, inc. (choice inc.). In connection with the transfer, choice entered into an agreement with hud that restricts the property as rental housing for the elderly through january 1, 2065 and hud released the organization from the requirements of the capital advance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 91% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 5
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97%; rating input score 97
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -831.7%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.5%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25.2% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.5% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $182K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $126K reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2022
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 4 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.