Intercommunity Housing Ferndale

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911667138
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3038303300
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$356,132
Expenses
$460,139
Assets
$1,311,373
Liabilities
$954,102

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • COLIN MORGAN-CROSS (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • JOSEPH THOMPSON (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • MENA PEEBLES (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • KASSIDI BOENING (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MELISSA CLAYTON (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MELISSA CLAYTON (VICE PRESIDENT): $308,489 total reported compensation
  • JOSEPH THOMPSON (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR): $295,390 total reported compensation
  • JOE ROSENBLUM (SECRETARY): $242,964 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Own and operate a 30-unit apartment project located in ferndale, Washington that provides housing, educational, and supportive services to low income, disadvantaged, and homeless persons

What it reported doing in 2024

Intercommunity housing ferndale was organized on december 19, 1994 as a Washington non-stock, nonprofit corporation for the purpose of constructing and operating a rental housing project under section 236 of the national housing act and section 220(d)(3a). Such projects are regulated by hud as to rent charges and operating methods. The project consists of 30 units located in ferndale, Washington and is currently operating under the name of ferndale square.

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 the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 32
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.2%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th 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: -29.2%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.85; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.73; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35.1%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $447K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $308K · 7 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: 497 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.