Mercy Midtown Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680002157
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3038303300
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,221,718
Expenses
$2,616,799
Assets
$9,936,550
Liabilities
$220,617

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOUG SHOEMAKER (DIRECTOR/PRESIDENT)
  • MELISSA CLAYTON (DIRECTOR/VICE PRESIDENT)
  • VAL AGOSTINO (DIRECTOR/VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BRUCE SAAB (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ED HOLDER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ERIKA VILLABLANCA (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JANE GRAF (VICE PRESIDENT): $430,104 total reported compensation
  • STEVE SPEARS (VICE PRESIDENT): $342,222 total reported compensation
  • DOUG SHOEMAKER (DIRECTOR/PRESIDENT): $268,596 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To develop, own, and operate low-income housing and provide services to low-income families, elderly, handicapped, homeless, potentially homeless, or otherwise disadvantaged persons.

What it reported doing in 2019

To develop, own, and operate low-income housing and provideservices to low-income families, elderly, handicapped, homeless, potentially homeless, or otherwise disadvantaged persons. Theproject is located in san francisco, ca and has 140 units.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 79% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 voting board members are independent and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 42
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.6%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 99.2%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.8%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.8; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.7%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 47.3% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.6% of revenue deployed · 99.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $430K · 16 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2015 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 480 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.