Metro West Collaborative Development Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 223073668
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Newton, MA, USA
- Phone
- 6179233505
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Housing Rehabilitation
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,442,264
- Expenses
- $5,652,433
- Assets
- $26,192,711
- Liabilities
- $24,976,178
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CRISTINA AYALA (VICE PRESIDENT)
- PAUL BOUTON (PRESIDENT)
- CAITLIN MADDEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- SHARONE SMALL (DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE): $168,060 total reported compensation
- CAITLIN MADDEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $153,019 total reported compensation
- ALISA GARDNER-TODREAS (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $115,690 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
We collaborate with metrowest communities to expand housing opportunities by: i. Building and preserving affordable housing ii. Helping families find and keep their homes iii. Counseling community leaders to achieve their housing goals iv. Advocating for supportive policy and investment
What it reported doing in 2024
Metro west cd provides assistance to households in search of affordable housing. We also coordinate lotteries and tenant/buyer selection on behalf of developers of affordable housing throughout Massachusetts. Metro west cd also provides affordable housing monitoring and compliance assistance to landlords and municipalities and manages the resale of affordable homeownership units. Metro west cd also administers emergency rental and direct financial assistance to help keep people housed.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 37
- Transparency & Controls: 91
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 39
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 48.9%; rating input score 49
- Program expense ratio: 28.1%; rating input score 28
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- 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: Yes; rating input score 100
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: 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: -3.9%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.63; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.95; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.7%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 14.7% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 16.4% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 23.5% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 48.9% of revenue deployed · 28.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $168K · 17 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $3M reported
- Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 10 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 49/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 28/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.