Harborlight Community Partners Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042313571
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Beverly, MA, USA
Phone
9782221305
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,011,335
Expenses
$5,466,797
Assets
$71,514,510
Liabilities
$41,257,195

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAM CONSTANTINE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT GILLIS (PRESIDENT)
  • ANDREW DEFRANZA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANDREW DEFRANZA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $467,666 total reported compensation
  • KRISTEN CARLSON (DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT): $277,293 total reported compensation
  • CHRISTINE VINCENTI (DIRECTOR OF PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT AND STRATEGY): $246,053 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Harborlight community partners provides affordable housing with services primarily for low and moderate income people in southern essex county. In addition, it provides provides property management and other services to non-profit organizations.

What it reported doing in 2024

Managed and/or developed affordable housing for over 500 low and moderate income people in essex county. This includes turtle creek, turtle woods, harborlight house, heart homes, we care about homes, whipple riverview place, cotton mill coop, rockport high school, pigeon cove ledges, and firehouse place. It also included development work for maple woods, granite street crossing, anchor point and boston street crossing.

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 - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.8%; rating input score 45
  • Program expense ratio: 91.6%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.39 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 54.5%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.08; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.58; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.3%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.8% of revenue deployed · 91.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $468K · 20 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $742K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 18 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.