Dock Village Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232136449
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lansdale, PA, USA
Phone
2153684438
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,661,330
Expenses
$1,058,907
Assets
$3,872,544
Liabilities
$129,764

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EDWARD D BRUBAKER (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • EDWARD D BRUBAKER (PRESIDENT & CEO): $430,070 total reported compensation
  • STEVEN D MYERS (CHIEF FINANCIAL & TECH OFF): $270,019 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Together we empower older adults and families to lead lives of purpose and joy, guided by the mennonite tradition of care and service to others.

What it reported doing in 2024

Dock village, inc. Is a rental-assistance apartment complex serving families and individuals of any age whose income meets hud housing subsidy requirements. The facility is run under the auspices of the hud section 202 program. Dock village includes 10 one-bedroom and 80 two-bedroom apartments, as well as 10 three-bedroom townhouses. Five additional apartments are specially designed to be accessible for individuals with physical disabilities. For the fiscal year ending june 30, 2025, the average unit occupancy was 98%, and total residents served was 104.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% 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 - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.8%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 70.7%; rating input score 71
  • 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 36.3%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.66; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43.8% of revenue deployed · 70.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $749K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $430K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 6 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 44/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.