Community Renewal Team Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
060795640
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Hartford, CT, USA
Phone
8605605600
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$47,217,358
Expenses
$47,075,314
Assets
$36,009,072
Liabilities
$9,528,157

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MAGDALENA RODRIGUEZ (PRESIDENT/CEO)
  • CHRISTOPHER MCCLUSKEY (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT)
  • HEIDI LUBETKIN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JULIE ACKERMAN (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MAGDALENA RODRIGUEZ (PRESIDENT/CEO): $417,740 total reported compensation
  • CHRISTOPHER MCCLUSKEY (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT): $189,216 total reported compensation
  • HEIDI LUBETKIN (VICE PRESIDENT): $159,550 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

(see schedule o)

What it reported doing in 2024

Housing services: crt operates a variety of housing assistance programs. These range from housing counseling for homeowners to two emergency shelters, one for single men (mckinney in hartford) and east hartford for families. Staff also work with individuals who are homeless or unstably housed to find and retain housing. These different housing initiatives involve ensuring that apartments are habitable, negotiating with landlords, assisting with rent and utilities, and linking clients to programs that will help them maintain stable housing (e.g mental health and substance use services, financial literacy, educational classes, vocational training, etc.) through these supportive housing projects, the agency works with ex-offenders, homeless veterans, adults, youth and the chronically homeless. Crt also operates a number of its own properties. These include an assisted living facility for seniors (the retreat), housing complexes that offer affordable apartments for seniors and for grandparents raising their children, and a transitional residence for homeless veterans.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 84% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 57% for direct work, and 43% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.8%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 93.1%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 6 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: 0.3%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.76; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.3%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.8% of revenue deployed · 93.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $43.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $418K · 20 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $268K reported
  • Consistency: 45 of 46 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.