Garden Park Apartments Community

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680484147
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3038303300
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$878,470
Expenses
$1,078,444
Assets
$4,019,213
Liabilities
$4,795,747

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LILLIAN LEW-HAILER (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • RICK SPRAGUE (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • ALVIN TUVILLA (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ASHLEI HURST (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DOUG SHOEMAKER (PRESIDENT)
  • ED HOLDER (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DOUG SHOEMAKER (PRESIDENT): $317,896 total reported compensation
  • ED HOLDER (VICE PRESIDENT): $310,484 total reported compensation
  • MELISSA CLAYTON (VICE PRESIDENT): $308,489 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The purpose of garden park apartment community is to manage or direct entities which are organized for the purpose of creating stable, vibrant and healthy communities by developing, financing and operating affordable, program-enriched housing for families, seniors and people with special needs who lack the economic resources to access quality, safe housing opportunities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Garden park apartment community, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation was organized on october 3, 2001 under the California nonprofit public benefit corporation law for charitable purposes. The specific charitable and public purposes for which the corporation is organized are to provide transitional housing for homeless families and to contribute to the fulfillment of the purposes of the contra costa interfaith transitional housing, inc. And mercy housing California, which are both exempt from federal income tax organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code. The corporation operates a low-income rental housing project consisting of 28 residential units located in pleasant hill, California.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 79% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 66
  • Sustainability: 28
  • 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; 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: 57.1%; rating input score 57; 12th 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: -22.8%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.73; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.19; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $318K · 21 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: 493 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.