Extreme Community Makeover

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273390755
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
7202358847
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$333,208
Expenses
$288,682
Assets
$233,256
Liabilities
$3,379

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATTHEW LUNN (PRESIDENT/TREASURER)
  • MAY THOMSEN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CONNIE MALONSON (PRESIDENT)
  • ANGELA BOMGAARS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANGELA BOMGAARS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $86,241 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Mission: extreme community makeover coordinates volunteer teams to partner with denver residents to improve their own homes and neighborhoods. These projects build safer environments; cultivate community among residents, neighborhoods, and networks of local resource providers; and connect residents to a permanent path towards healthy, hopeful, and stable lives.

What it reported doing in 2024

Through ecm work days, volunteer groups work in specific denver neighborhoods to complete exterior home and neighborhood improvement projects such as painting, yard work, graffiti removal, fence repair, trimming bushes, and a variety of other home improvement / repair projects. These projects build relationships with denver neighbors and bring people together, while building a stronger sense of community. In 2024, ecm work days mobilized 1,215 volunteers, while assisting 68 residents with projects at their homes and cleaning 118 alleys. These volunteers invested 5,885 volunteer hours into improving denver neighborhoods, with an economic impact of $227,985 in volunteer labor value, while also contributing $864 of in-kind contributions for food and project supplies.

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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.3%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 72.6%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.4%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.81; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.9%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63.3% of revenue deployed · 72.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $210K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $86K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.