Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454458511
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Raleigh, NC, USA
Phone
9197836400
Rating
53
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Society Benefit N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$827,476
Expenses
$7,679,004
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JOSEPH A SMITH JR (PRES. & BOAR): $325,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Form 990, part i, line 1 and part iii, lines 1 and 4a: joseph a. Smith, jr. Formed the office of mortgage settlement oversight (omso), a non-for-profit corporation, to help him carry out his duties as monitor (the monitor) of the national mortgage settlement. The monitor's primary tasks are to determine whether the servicers are in compliance with the mortgage servicing standards and consumer relief requirements as set forth in the consent judgments that comprise the settlement. Omso assists the monitor with functions related to the business of being the monitor, including managing the omso budget, contracting with consultants and professional firms, hiring employees and maintaining books and records. Reference can be found at unc law school national mortgage settlements digital archive at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/mortgage-settlements.

What it reported doing in 2018

Residual balance of net assets in cash that was appropriately disbursed to a public charity in accordance with the organization's bylaws upon dissolution.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% 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. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 42
  • Sustainability: 7
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.7%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 8.8%; rating input score 9
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -828%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.2%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -42.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -23.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.7% of revenue deployed · 8.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 1 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $676K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $325K · 1 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $4.8M reported
  • Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2012 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.