DreamKey Partners
Legal name: DreamKey Partners Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 561620516
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Aug 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Charlotte, North Carolina, US
- Phone
- 704-342-0933
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $27,604,493
- Expenses
- $21,503,397
- Assets
- $152,799,828
- Liabilities
- $130,980,815
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
26 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Ms Julie A Porter (President)
- Ms Rebekah Baker (Vice-President-Property)
Highest reported compensation
- Ms Julie A Porter (President): $381,585 total reported compensation
- Mr Fred Dodson Jr (COO / Assistant Secretary): $290,982 total reported compensation
- Mr Daniel Cimaglia (Sr. VP of Real Estate Development): $233,645 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Transforming lives, communities, and what is possible with affordable housing.
What it reported doing in 2024
Dreamkey partners, inc. Is a nonprofit housing development and finance corporation organized in the state of North Carolina on july 5, 1988 to expand affordable and well-maintained housing and promote stable neighborhoods for low and moderate income families with a continuing interest in the ability of occupants to more fully enter the economic mainstream. The strategies that dreamkey partners, inc. Has adopted to fulfill its mission are as follows: revitalizing targeted inner city neighborhoods, developing and managing affordable rental property, and providing homeownership opportunities. Dreamkey partners, inc. Is designated as a community based development organization (cbdo) by the city of charlotte.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 74% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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 and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and some filed totals do not add up.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 68
- Transparency & Controls: 80
- Accountability: 92
- Sustainability: 70
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 72.9%; rating input score 73
- Program expense ratio: 82.6%; rating input score 83
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 95%; rating input score 95; 28th 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 22.1%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.11; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.86; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.9%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 72.9% of revenue deployed · 82.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 19 of 20 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $17.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $382K · 26 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $50.9M reported
- Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 60 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.
- 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.