Maplewood Court Mutual Housing Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
061483608
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2018, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Trumbull, CT, USA
Phone
2033596940
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$11
Expenses
$691
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$284,508

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JENNIFER CHADWICK (President)
  • THERESA KORIN (Vice President)
  • RENEE DOBOS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • JENNIFER CHADWICK (President)
  • DEBORAH BRANCATO (Director)
  • NATHANIEL YORDON (Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide affordable housing to low and moderate families by investing in a limited partnership that operates affordable residential housing.

What it reported doing in 2019

The organization was created to be the general partner in a limited units in bridgeport, ct under internal revenue code section 42. All the project revenue is reflected on the limited partnership's books. This entity only reflects the gp's share of the net loss. At the end of the compliance period under irc section 42, the project ownership will be re- structured with the developer, the limited partner and the general partner. The intent is that this entity will be dissolved at that time.the compliance period ended in 2014.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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 total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 8
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 11.1%; rating input score 11

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6,181.8%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 48.9% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -23.9% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -113.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 11.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $77 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.