Mercy Properties California

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680233835
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3038303300
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,002,849
Expenses
$859,043
Assets
$10,706,917
Liabilities
$3,003,023

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LILLIAN LEW-HAILER (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • MELISSA CLAYTON (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • RAMIE DARE (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR/CHAIRMAN)
  • ALVIN TUVILLA (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ASHLEI HURST (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DOUG SHOEMAKER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

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

The purpose of mercy properties California 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

To provide low-income housing and educational and supportive services to low-income and homeless persons, potentially homeless persons or otherwise disadvantaged persons

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 32
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 28.1%; rating input score 28
  • Program expense ratio: 98.2%; 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd 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: 71.4%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.46; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 42.4%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.4% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 28.1% of revenue deployed · 98.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $844K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $318K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 497 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 28/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.