Hearthway Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042483322
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Pittsfield, MA, USA
Phone
4134991630
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing

Reported finances

Revenue
$20,858,022
Expenses
$20,834,500
Assets
$19,252,477
Liabilities
$10,175,933

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EILEEN PELTIER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • EILEEN PELTIER (PRESIDENT): $189,682 total reported compensation
  • ALLISON MAXFIELD (CFO): $169,855 total reported compensation
  • MATTHEW KROPKE (DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT): $143,951 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Development and operation of housing and community development projects and programs that benefit low and moderate income people. Most significant current activities are developing affordable housing, administering the section 8 hcv program, administering housing assistance programs including raft, homebase and neighbor to neighbor and operating the region.

What it reported doing in 2024

Hearthway develops, owns, and manages affordable housing for low-and moderate-income households throughout berkshire county. Program activities include identifying development opportunities, securing financing from federal, state and private sources, overseeing construction and rehabilitation, and managing residential properties to ensure they remain safe, well-maintained, and affordable over the long term. In addition to property management, the organization provides resident services designed to support housing stability and improve quality of life. Through the integration of housing development, property operations, and service-enriched housing, the organization promotes stable housing and stronger communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 94% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.6%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 88.9%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $26.64 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

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: 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: 0.1%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.92; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.53; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.3%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 42.8% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 27.6% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.2% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.6% of revenue deployed · 88.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $18.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $190K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

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.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.