Enterprise Community Partners

Legal name: Enterprise Community Partners Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521231931
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Columbia, MD, USA
Phone
4109641230
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$114,759,991
Expenses
$139,878,962
Assets
$941,072,482
Liabilities
$53,553,508

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

39 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHAUN DONOVAN (TRUSTEE, PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • TIMOTHY MAYOPOULOS (CEO, POWER FORWARD COMMUNITIES)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHAUN DONOVAN (TRUSTEE, PRESIDENT & CEO): $1,328,763 total reported compensation
  • JACQUELINE WAGGONER (EVP, SOL. DIV. UNTIL 4/25): $953,177 total reported compensation
  • LINDA MANLEY (SVP & CLO & SECRETARY): $583,658 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To make home and community places of pride, power, and belonging, as well as platforms for resilience and upward mobility, for all. Enterprise has the breadth, scale, and expertise to do it. We support community development organizations on the ground. We aggregate and invest billions to improve housing and strengthen communities across the U.S. We advance housing policy at every level of government. We build and manage communities ourselves. Everything we do is informed by the residents we serve. Together with our partners, we focus on the greatest need — the massive shortage of affordable rental homes — to achieve three goals: 1. Increase the supply of affordable homes.

What it reported doing in 2025

See schedule osolutions: our solutions division delivers programmatic, policy, advisory and capacity-building services at the national, state and local levels, working in urban, rural and suburban communities across the country in collaboration with thousands of partners in the nonprofit, public and for-profit sectors. We manage the following dedicated market offices: central midwest, gulf coast, mid-atlantic, New York, northern California, Ohio, pacific northwest, rocky mountain, southeast and southern California. We also support affordable housing and community development more broadly coast to coast, including rural communities, in the us virgin islands and puerto rico, and on tribal lands. In 2025, we provided technical assistance and training to meet our partners' greatest needs, identified policy levers that could provide resources to increase production and preservation in their communities, and supported efforts to strengthen the affordable housing ecosystem nationwide. The focus of our programmatic work was on three strategic areas of focus: 1) increasing housing access, quality and resilience; 2) supporting and strengthening community and civic infrastructure; 3) promoting systems change.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 48% for direct work, 50% for grants, and 2% for affiliated organizations.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 97
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 88.6%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.4 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 95%; rating input score 95; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: 99.2%; rating input score 99; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.2%; rating input score 95; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -21.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.73; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 88.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 21 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $123.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.3M · 39 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.5M reported
  • Consistency: 42 of 43 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 360 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 810 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.