Mayflower Gardens Ii
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 953315308
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Long Beach, CA, USA
- Phone
- 5622575100
- Rating
- 65
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,886,602
- Expenses
- $759,477
- Assets
- $5,339,200
- Liabilities
- $76,363
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
35 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- HARTMAN STUART J (PRESIDENT/CEO)
- DESAEGHER NORMA N (VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- HARTMAN STUART J (PRESIDENT/CEO): $770,133 total reported compensation
- AMBERG ROBERT R (EXECUTIVE VP GEN COUNSEL): $530,647 total reported compensation
- ROSSELLO FRANK JR (CFO AND VP OF FINANCE): $488,122 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Mayflower gardens ii is a not-for-profit corporation formed in accordance with the not-for-profit statutes of the state of California. The corporation was formed for the purpose of operating a 76 unit community known as mayflower gardens ii located in lancaster, California, which provides housing for low income elderly persons. The corporation receives housing assistance payments from the u.s. Department of housing and urban development pursuant to section 221(d)(3) of the national housing act, as amended. During the year ended 2/28/21, the mortgage was paid in full.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 76% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 45
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 78
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 35.5%; rating input score 35
- Program expense ratio: 77.6%; rating input score 78
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 59.7%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.03; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 100.4%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 35.5% of revenue deployed · 77.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $589K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $770K · 35 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 228 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 35/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.