Community Services Second Housing Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 273842364
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Buffalo, NY, USA
- Phone
- 7168838888
- Rating
- 65
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $85,393
- Expenses
- $144,686
- Assets
- $720,458
- Liabilities
- $45,185
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- MINDY CERVONI (DIRECTOR): $395,924 total reported compensation
- SHARON CHMIELNICKI (DIRECTOR): $214,623 total reported compensation
- JENNIFER O'BRIEN (DIRECTOR): $186,248 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide affordable low income housing to individuals with disabilities.
What it reported doing in 2025
Community services second housing corporation (the corporation) is a not-for-profit corporation organized to provide developmentally disabled individuals with a housing facility and services specially designed to meet their physical, social and psychological needs, and to promote their health, security, happiness and usefulness in longer living. The corporation operates the hopkins residence (the residence), an eight-unit apartment complex in buffalo, New York (the project). The project is insured and regulated by the u.s. Department of housing andurban development (hud) under section 811 of the national affordable housing act. Such residences are regulated by hud as to rent, charges and operating methods.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 56
- Accountability: 59
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 82.6%; rating input score 83
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th 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: No; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 28.6%; rating input score 29; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Limited
- 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: -69.4%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.98; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 96.1%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -13.6% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 35th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 82.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $120K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $396K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 11 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 29/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.