Everett Non-profit Housing Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
061468864
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Warren, MI, USA
Phone
5867539002
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,145,479
Expenses
$1,215,160
Assets
$5,951,829
Liabilities
$1,142,739

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHERYLE MOREY (PRESIDENT)
  • MARY DALESSANDRO (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ANNIE MITCHELL (FORMER PRESIDENT)
  • GLORIA PARRIS (FORMER VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANNE SACKRISON (ASSISTANT SECRETARY): $368,043 total reported compensation
  • MEL HUDSON (NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGER): $269,361 total reported compensation
  • DIANE SMITH (NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGER): $259,515 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide housing facilities for low income senior citizens.

What it reported doing in 2024

Everett non-profit housing corporation, is a Massachusetts non-profit housing corporation organized on a non-stock basis by cooperative services, inc., a Michigan non-profit cooperative. The corporation was formed january 10, 1997 to acquire an interest in real property located in everett, Massachusetts and to construct and operate thereon an apartment project of 78 units. Housing is provided to low income seniors in cooperation with the us department of housing and urban development.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.8%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 77.8%; rating input score 78
  • 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -6.1%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.9; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.4%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.8% of revenue deployed · 77.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $945K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $368K · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $236K reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 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: 92 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.