Martin House Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 061064857
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Norwich, CT, USA
- Phone
- 8608896150
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,526,437
- Expenses
- $1,602,516
- Assets
- $1,093,059
- Liabilities
- $80,045
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Sheila Coleman (President)
- Debbie Eskra (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Jon Maderia (Executive Dir.): $104,548 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of Martin House, Inc. is to provide a nurturing community where individuals of limited income who have been alone, alienated, fearful, and dispossessed can develop healthy relationships, new dignity, and a renewed life. Our community will include people recovering from mental illness and addictions.This mission is accomplished by providing dignified housing, nutritious food, a safe, caring environment, and supportive services for 54 men and women who seldom experience any of these.LEASE UNCAS-ON-THAMES CAMPUS On November 16, 2012, a lease was entered into by the State of Connecticut and Martin House, Inc. for property located at 401 West Thames Street, Building 700, (also referred to as the Uncas-On-Thames Campus), Norwich, CT. The initial term of the lease was for a period of 1-5 years with annual base rent of $1.00. There is an option to extend the term of this lease from 6-10 years after the initial lease period. The initial lease period was scheduled to be terminated on
What it reported doing in 2024
The Housing situation in New London County has changed since the COVID pandemic. This has limited the opportunity to create capacity and transition our current residents to affordable housing. This has meant our residents having longer placements at Martin House being that this is an affordable option. Martin House is and has been exploring other avenues to add capacity by transitioning current residents to other affordable options, through additional funding, working with the state of CT stakeholders, working on affordable housing committee's and through work with our current Board of Directors.
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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 81
- Transparency & Controls: 87
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 32
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.1%; rating input score 83
- Program expense ratio: 80%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: $40.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: -5%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.68; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.5%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 83.1% of revenue deployed · 80% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $105K · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.