Ocean State Consortium

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
460990626
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Barrington, RI, USA
Phone
4012457900
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Religion Related N.E.C.
Affiliation
Religious (unspecified)

Reported finances

Revenue
$85,429
Expenses
$39,207
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAWRENCE D WIEDENHOFER (VICE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY)
  • DAVID C REISS (PRESIDENT/TREASURER)

People named in this filing

  • THEODORE POLAK (BOARD MEMBER)
  • LAWRENCE D WIEDENHOFER (VICE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY)
  • DAVID C REISS (PRESIDENT/TREASURER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the ocean state consortium is to determine housing and service needs for disabled and other individuals with special needs which include exploring community based supports for targeted populations. It will also explore the acquisition of group homes owned by the state of Rhode Island.

What it reported doing in 2016

The ocean state consortium owns and manages the housing development for u.s. Veterans in need of permanent affordable housing located at 492 south main street in woonsocket, Rhode Island. Housing is made affordable to low-income veterans by securing interest free financing as well as obtaining grant subsidies.

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: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.3%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 52.7%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 54.1%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -25.5% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -11.6% per year; rating input score 0; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -41.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.3% of revenue deployed · 52.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $21K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2013 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.