Mercy Bond Properties Colorado I

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943286321
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3038303300
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Rehabilitation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$681,062
Expenses
$694,105
Assets
$2,335,327
Liabilities
$2,122,879

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOUG SHOEMAKER (DIRECTOR/PRESIDENT)
  • KASSIDI BOENING (DIRECTOR/VICE PRESIDENT)
  • LILLIAN LEW-HAILER (DIRECTOR/VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MELISSA CLAYTON (DIRECTOR/VICE PRESIDENT)
  • RAMIE DARE (DIRECTOR/VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SHELLY MARQUEZ (DIRECTOR/VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DOUG SHOEMAKER (DIRECTOR/PRESIDENT): $317,896 total reported compensation
  • ED HOLDER (VICE PRESIDENT): $310,484 total reported compensation
  • MELISSA CLAYTON (DIRECTOR/VICE PRESIDENT): $308,489 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Mercy bond properties Colorado i was organized on april 3, 2001 as a California nonstock, nonprofit corporation for the purpose of constructing and operating rental housing projects under section 202 of the national housing act. Such projects are regulated by hud as to rent charges and operating methods. This organization is to provide housing facilities and educational and supportive services for low-income and homeless, potentially homeless or otherwise disadvantaged persons.

What it reported doing in 2024

Housing development programs and services include acquiring acceptable locations for either new construction or rehabilitation of existing properties for multi-family rental properties and single family housing units. These would help to provide affordable housing to low-income residents, obtain financing for the development of low-income properties and housing units, and manage the construction and/or rehabilitation of low-income properties and housing units through obtaining the certification of occupancy project completion. The project consists of 54 units located in denver, Colorado.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 77% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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: 71
  • Accountability: 32
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.5%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.7%; rating input score 98
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th 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: -1.9%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.36; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.91; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 67.5%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.5% of revenue deployed · 97.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $678K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $318K · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 498 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.