Mercy Community Housing Georgia Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
582434289
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3038303300
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,338,468
Expenses
$1,750,839
Assets
$10,995,806
Liabilities
$9,040,540

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MELISSA CLAYTON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JAMES ALEXANDER (PRESIDENT)
  • KASSIDI BOENING (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MELISSA CLAYTON (VICE PRESIDENT): $308,489 total reported compensation
  • JAMES ALEXANDER (PRESIDENT): $262,394 total reported compensation
  • JOSEPH 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

The purpose of mercy community housing Georgia, inc is to manage or direct entities which are organized for the purpose of creating stable, vibrant and healthy communities by developing, financing and operating affordable, program-enriched housing for families, seniors, and people with special needs who lack the economic resources to access quality, safe housing opportunities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Manage or direct low- and moderate-income housing projects and supportive services for low-income families, elderly, handicapped, homeless, and disadvantaged persons.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 73% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.3%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -30.8%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.28; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.82; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.8%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.8% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $308K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.