District Three Iue Housing Dev Fund Corp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
141541574
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
9372989985
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing

Reported finances

Revenue
$155,248
Expenses
$145,137
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CARMEN DEPOALO (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JAMES CLARK (BOARD MBR)
  • DOMINICK PATRIGNANI (BOARD MBR)
  • CARMEN DEPOALO (PRESIDENT)

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 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

See 990 page 2, item 4a below.

What it reported doing in 2014

Troy hills apartments, section ii, district three, iue, housing development fund corporation ("troy two"), was incorporated pursuant to article xi of the private housing finance law and section 402 of the non-profit corporation law, both of the state of New York, for the primary purpose of: (a) providing relief to low income working families by supporting better housing including programs: providing financial assistance, counseling services, seminars and training to assist low income persons. (b) supporting renovations and improvements of low income housing including low income energy assistance programs by responsible contractors that provide fair wages. And to provide relief for needy individuals and veterans.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 80% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 18
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.5%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.4%; rating input score 96; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.5%; rating input score 59; 59th 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%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 100.6% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -31.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.5% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $145K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.