Padre Apartments Community
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 840789830
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Denver, CO, USA
- Phone
- 3038303300
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,020,488
- Expenses
- $956,450
- Assets
- $2,374,539
- Liabilities
- $751,637
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 (DIRECTOR/VICE PRESIDENT)
- MELISSA CLAYTON (DIRECTOR/VICE PRESIDENT)
- RAMIE DARE (DIRECTOR/VICE PRESIDENT)
- 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 (DIRECTOR/VICE PRESIDENT): $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 organization's primary exempt purpose is to provide housing services for low-income and homeless persons, potentially homeless persons or otherwise disadvantaged persons with housing facilities and educational and supportive services.
What it reported doing in 2024
Padre apartments community, a California nonprofit public benefit organization, was initially organized in february 1996 for the purpose of developing, constructing, owning, and operating a 41-unit apartment complex operating under the name of padre apartments. The organization is located in san francisco, California and began operations in march 2001.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 73% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 87% 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 32
- Sustainability: 49
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 86.6%; rating input score 87
- Program expense ratio: 91.8%; rating input score 92
- 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th 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: 6.3%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.48; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 38.1%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 86.6% of revenue deployed · 91.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $878K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $318K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 498 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.