Greyston Foundation

Legal name: Greyston Family Inn of Yonkers Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133407079
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2017
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Yonkers, NY, US
Phone
914-376-3900
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Homeless Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,187,393
Expenses
$1,847,464
Assets
$223,291
Liabilities
$71,043

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL BRADY (PRESIDENT)
  • JOSEPH ARMENTANO (VICE-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL BRADY (PRESIDENT): $348,564 total reported compensation
  • ANDY ROSENGARDEN (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $194,404 total reported compensation
  • PATRICK JAMES (SECRETARY): $153,471 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Greyston has changed lives by unlocking the power of human potential through inclusive employment, one person at a time.

What it reported doing in 2017

Greyston housing: the provision of affordable housing to vulnerable populations is essential to helping them achieve self-sufficiency. Greyston pioneered the concept of creating affordable permanent housing for homeless individuals combined with on-site tenant service in the mid-1980s. Over the past thirty years, greyston's housing portfolio has expanded to nearly 300 units of workforce housing, low-income housing, and permanent housing for individuals living with HIV/AIDS.this program was discontinued at the end of 2017.

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 program spending has grown recently. 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: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 43
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.2%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 89%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.5%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.12; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -13.4% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 97.2% of revenue deployed · 89% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $349K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $181K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2011 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 17 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.