El Mirage Senior Village
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 860847975
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Denver, CO, USA
- Phone
- 3038303300
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $374,650
- Expenses
- $414,883
- Assets
- $457,265
- Liabilities
- $53,777
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KASSIDI BOENING (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
- MELISSA CLAYTON (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
- SHELLY MARQUEZ (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
- ELLEN ABRAMS (VICE PRESIDENT)
- JOANNA CROSBY (VICE PRESIDENT)
- KUHL BROWN (VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- MELISSA CLAYTON (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR): $308,489 total reported compensation
- SHELLY MARQUEZ (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR): $284,440 total reported compensation
- JOE ROSENBLUM (SECRETARY): $242,964 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Develop low-income housing projects and provide services to low-income families, elderly, handicapped, homeless, potentially homeless, or otherwise disadvantaged persons
What it reported doing in 2024
Owns and operates a 41-unit apartment project known as el mirage senior village in el mirage, Arizona. The project provides services to low-income families, elderly, handicapped, homeless and disadvantaged persons
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 65% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 88
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 32
- Sustainability: 27
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 96.6%; rating input score 97
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th 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: -10.7%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.1; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 46.1%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -7.3% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $401K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $308K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
- 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
- Related organizations: 497 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.