Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043425772
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Roxbury, MA, USA
Phone
6174279740
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Legal Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$530,682
Expenses
$617,809
Assets
$100,076
Liabilities
$207,603

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

People named in this filing

  • MICHELLE WATERS-EKANEM (CHAIR/CLERK)
  • MICHAEL STONE (TREASURER)
  • JULIA COFIELD (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Works to eliminate housing discrimination and promote open communities in norfolk, suffolk, essex, middlesex, and plymouth counties of Massachusetts.

What it reported doing in 2014

Policy development public policy advocacy: the fhcgb collaborates with other housing, legal, civil rights, and community organizations to add fair housing expertise and promote equity in policy debates. We advocate for strong local, state, and federal housing laws and policies and work to ensure their effective implementation. Fhcgb been very successful in getting fair housing principles embedded in local and regional policy discussions concerning but not limited to; affordable housing, inclusionary housing, zoning reform, lead paint, victims of domestic violence, and home ownership. In october 2013 the fair housing center of greater boston founded the fair housing network, a coalition of fair housing commissions, fair housing committees and community-based organizations. The network was established so all its members could share information vital to our work and discuss best practices, identify patterns of discriminatory behavior that go beyond individual cities and towns and develop systemic approaches to resolving them. The fair housing network has provided us with an efficient platform from which to address important public policy issues and insure that fair housing and equity concerns are an integral part of all urban development policies at the local and state level. Research: to inform our advocacy, the fhcgb researches and documents the nature and extent of housing discrimination - including the fair housing impacts of public policies -- both on our own and with area universities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 88% 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

STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.6%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 71.8%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $36.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -16.4%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.16; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.07; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.7% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.2% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.6% of revenue deployed · 71.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $443K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2009 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

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: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.