Dennis Mclaughlin House of Charlestown Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043165779
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2013
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Charlestown, MA, USA
Phone
6172420251
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Mental Health Treatment F31 Psychiatric, Mental Health Hospital

Reported finances

Revenue
$123,345
Expenses
$130,052
Assets
$53,221
Liabilities
$63,653

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SARA SATHAM (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SARA SATHAM (PRESIDENT)
  • LORI PENNEL (TREASURER)
  • CATHY GUILD (CLERK)

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

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Assist homeless, low and moderate income greater boston women in the process of recovering from substance abuse to maintain their recovery and stabilize and rebuild their lives and their families; to acquire the education and/or job training to gain marketable skills and become financially self-sufficient; learn new life skills and build new and healthy social netowrks, and make use of the community's resources to support their transition into independent, substance-free living in permanent housing.

What it reported doing in 2013

See enclosed statement of mission.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 89% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.6%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 53.7%; rating input score 54

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.4%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.41; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.2; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33.2%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13.6% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -12.8% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.6% of revenue deployed · 53.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $70K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.